Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Disclaimer: The purpose of this document, besides to provide me with something to do during the slowest part of the day, is to objectively analyze the Star Wars prequel trilogy for 'crap elements'; more specifically, parts of the plot that are just inane, pointless, and crap. This particular document is being put in the Expanded Universe section officially because it may reference and utilize EU to compare and contrast the source material, and also because I don't bother to patrol the actual prequel trilogy sub-forum. This work is literally done on the fly, from my great stellar mind to this papermessage board. Any insight, if not profound, should at least entertain. Due to revisions, lack of coherent structure, and intermittent job stuff to do, this work may be amended over the course of a day/days/week. It's also possible I will bust the character limit and be forced to continue on, as people rampantly comment and push the reasons farther and farther apart.

Lastly, Jar-Jar will specifically not be mentioned as being one of these reasons, because that would be lazy on my part and also because the OT has similarly eye-raping monstrosities which we all try hard to forget.

--

10. Anakin being the strongest Jedi ever.

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Anakin+midi-chlorians.+extra+chromosome_02d7c2_4412360.png

At first, this might seem to be a nitpick. After all, who cares if the main character - the guy the saga ultimately revolves around - is powerful? Usually the main hero is only given backup so that your friend can pick someone else when the game release inevitably comes out. My contention is that the plot device does not help the greater narrative and in fact may actually cause more problems. I'll attempt to illustrate why, and if you disagree, naturally you're wrong. (See disclaimer)

To start, Anakin's raw potential would make a great deal more sense if it was actually realized, for the same reason why a Corvette would be a shitty car if you could only use neutral and low gears. It begins as an informed attribute and somewhat remains that, with young Ani being an incredible pod racer and having super predictive reflex thingies that allow him to fly. This at first might seem like a tie-in to Luke's abilities showcased an ANH, and there's nothing wrong with that concept. They are related, and we already expected comparisons. What becomes an issue is when Qui-Gon Jinn takes out his metal doohickey which he seemingly always carries and tests Ani for the genetic disease that is 'midi-chlorians'.

In the OT, we are not given a hint that anyone, much less the Jedi Order, requires a device to measure a unit of biological function simply to ascertain Force sensitivity. Given that they are using a pseudo-magical universal life force to 'feel' or 'sense' things in their environment, this seems rather pointless. If you can see without using your eyes, aim without using a space-age targeting computer, and sense pain across the galaxy, why would you need to use a device to find out some kid is rippling with Force power? Hell, you could toss a ball at him a few times and probably pick up on it.

Ah well, you say, using the Historian's Fallacy, this is because the plot element was ham-fisted into the story to show us that Anakin is the Chosen One, and will fulfill the Prophecy, and end the Evil, and reset the Cosmic Balance, possibly by Bodyslamming and Old Man from Behind. But his OMGZ level of power isn't instrumental to anything that happens, for the same reason why Samwise Gamgee (the Chosen One of Middle-earth) isn't a 20th Level Sun Elf/Arcane Archer/Dervish; it kind of undermines any struggles or accomplishments he makes and it isn't important at all (Sam's true talent lay in putting up with Frodo and being a loyal pack mule). It also makes us wonder why he didn't just levitate the Millennium Falcon with his mind and chuck it out of orbit instead of letting it ambush him (and fiddling with his targeting systems) when chasing Luke in ANH. (Holy crap - I just realized that Vader's reliance on technology over the Force in that instance indicates how far he has fallen).

Still, we don't need Chosen Ones or heroes or even whiny heroes to be all-powerful in order to like them. Oftentimes, we are drawn to characters for their personalities, which include their realistic depictions, flaws, and hopes. Vader was a compelling character in the OT not because he was strong, or the strongest; but because he was a dark, powerful figure who represented great evil yet in turn was grasping at the last bits of his morality. He was redeemable and he had depth.

In the PT, we are given this idea of "Anakin is destined to be the best evar" and it never comes to fruition. It just is this author asspull, meant to add another dimension to the story that doesn't enhance the OT and throws a wrench in all sorts of existing continuity. In EU, for example, characters like Kyp Durron, Ulic, Sadow, Exar, and even Luke all have extremely high showings. Dark Empire Skywalker crushes an AT-AT with a wave of his hand, using the maxim of "Size matters not" to its natural conclusion of "What's a No-Limits Fallacy?". You have Sadow's Force trinkets blowing stuff up, Kressh crushing statues by flexing his fingers, Ulic shielding artillery, and Nomi cutting people off from the Force. The frequency, showiness, and scale of Force powers unfortunately climbed in EU (I'm not advocating this as a good thing), but it is especially jarring that the 'most powerful evar' rarely demonstrates powers above Obi-Wan Kenobi. Even in direct comparison with his 'peers' (Mace, Dooku, Sidious, Yoda) Anakin is not head and shoulders above any of them, even using TCW and EU as supplementary materials.

So the question remains: Why make him the strongest ever when it doesn't aid the overall plot at all?

Anakin is destined to lose to Obi-Wan Kenobi. He is destined to serve the Emperor for decades. He is destined to kill himself doing something relatively unimpressive (bodyslamming an old man) for the sake of his long-lost son and redeem himself. Just about the only mentions of his former self in the OT talk about his flying potential. And for this reason, Anakin's potential has the same bearing on things as Frodo's dark curly hair has on the plot of Lord of the Rings.

Counterargument: Since I know this first point of contention will butt-hurt some individuals, I'll offer the counterargument that Anakin's potential is essential to both establishing Luke as the legitimately strongest evar and allowing EU writers to fellate his bloodline, and important for the Mortis arc. However, the Skywalkers get entirely too much love and the Mortis arc was retarded, so I dismiss this counterargument out of hand.

--

Oh yeah, midi-chlorians.

http://troll.me/images/ancient-aliens-guy/midichlorians-thumb.jpg

Seriously, what the hell? I can suspend disbelief for a lot of things: SFX in space, the Force, lightsabers, the Deathstar requiring enough power and resources to stripmine galaxies... but I can't stomach midi-chlorians. Why is this, you ask? Because they are mind-numbingly stupid, that's why.

First, none of us asked the question. We accepted at face value that the Force was, that it was everywhere, and that not everyone could use it. We didn't expect Han Solo to levitate drinks to his cockpit or R2 to level entire continents with lightning. The unspoken rules of the plot device were understood and respected.

Somewhere in his Fortress of Inexplicable Backsliding and Absence of Fridge Logic, George Lucas decided that we needed a mundane method of establishing Force sensitivity as well as a mundane way of measuring it. Thus was Qui-Gon's doohickey born, and along with it the concept of midi-chlorians. These are microscopic, symbiotic, microbiotic, supersonic Deus ex bacterium that somehow allow people to connect with the life force of the galaxy. This would be similar to T-cells allowing us to sense weather patterns, or mitochondria allowing us to bend spoons.

I'm not alone in this nitpick, simply because it reduces something wonderful and mystic to something.... sciencey. It's not quite hard science, but it's much closer than it was back in the late 70's, early 80's, when most of us were bornwatching the OT. It also opens up all sorts of questions like:

- Can you get a midi-chlorian transplant?
- Are they marketable?
- If anyone can test for it, why aren't non-Republic worlds mass-enslaving/genociding Force sensitive children and bloodlines?
- How much would an indoctrinated Force servant cost?
- If you are just a head like Simus, where are all the midi-chlorians stored? Sinuses?

You get the idea. It was not necessary, like Anakin's rawr potential, and did not aid the greater plot at all. It also makes for a world where Force users could be tracked easily and has unfortunate implications, like a Mutant Registration Act.

I'm also hitting my character limit, so to be continued with reason eight.

Your stance on power hierarchies in the Star Wars mythos continues to baffle.

OP is mad.

Well I thought it was a good read. Keep it up!

Great work!

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Just about the only mentions of his former self in the OT talk about his flying potential.

It was mentioned more than that.

Kenobi does tell Luke in the OT that he was "Amazed" how strong the Force was in his Father. And that Kenobi and the Emperor both knew that "If Anakin were to have any off spring, they would be a threat to him ".

And there was also Yoda's line "Your Father! Powerful Jedi was he" Powerful Jedi!"


Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Since I know this first point of contention will butt-hurt some individuals, I'll offer the counterargument that Anakin's potential is essential to both establishing Luke as the legitimately strongest evar and allowing EU writers to fellate his bloodline, and important for the Mortis arc. However, the Skywalkers get entirely too much love and the Mortis arc was retarded, so I dismiss this counterargument out of hand.



It is this though. We saw little hints of Anakin's true potential when he took down Dooku, and on Mortis now as well.

But basically his assumed destiny of becoming the most powerful ever was passed on to his son (which we may finally see on screen for the first time now in EPVII). But his own destiny ended up being a tragedy, as we always knew it would. End of the day we knew in the OT Vader was living on life support and serving the Emperor (not the other way around).

8. The Fights became Farces.

http://www.journaldugeek.com/files/2013/03/Lightsaber-Fail-sci-fi-weapon-star-wars.jpeg

Although hampered by technology, ANH especially, the fights of the OT have a sense of drama about them, suspense, and believability. Even though these are mystical warriors using improbable weapons to duel each other instead of explosives or meteors, we become invested in the outcome and enjoy the result. The PT would have you know you're wrong.

Fights are all about flashiness. Lightsabers should twirl like batons, cutting the air and leaving that sweet, sweet smell of CGI everywhere. Individuals fighters should likewise spin like tops, leaving their backs exposed, limiting their visibility, and taking up precious time so they can look cool. This is similar to the ancient Roman gladiators, who often did flips and fought with one hand behind their back to please the crowds and prove their manliness.

Or you know, it's just stupid fight choreography, designed to be superficially rewarding while being tragically condescending to the audience. I love sharing this image:

https://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/wsg/image/1340/37/1340370232226.gif

^ There is nothing smart, awesome, or cool about that. It's two grown men, close enough to tickle each other, barely moving, and swinging to entirely miss each other. We'll ignore that they are supposed to have precognition so advanced, they can outfly and outfight space-age computers. The only viable explanation could be that they are swirling up aerial midi-chlorians and ingesting them to power up for the last round of their battle.

http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/1044414/81478513.gif
http://a.gifb.in/112011/1320956195_girl_light_saber_dance.gif
(Images added for direct comparison)

"But Moose", you say with rising blood pressure, "Some of the PT fights were actually kinda cool." I know, some parts are cool. TPM's final duel is about the best one in the entire prequel trilogy. Ray Park's natural talent is dialed back, but all the same it has the best choreography and the least BS of any battle in the three films. Dooku's stunt double is technically the best fencer in the films, showing talent well above the norm.

But these exceptions just highlight how horribad the rest is, filled with with senseless moves, mind-boggling spins, and so on. The first time I saw Yoda flip like a psychotic spider, a part of me died. I was embarassed in the theater. It was marginally better by the time I saw him in RotS, but it was still just senseless. Yoda was a small being, renowned for his great wisdom and thought wars didn't make you a great person. His command of the Force was probably the best in the OT, making him the go-to mystical shaman archetype. So why is he fighting with his kid's toy saber? What does it add to the storyline, besides a "Combat Yoda" action figure?

Sidious' battle against the trio and Mace was also quite bad. Ignoring the telegraphed Psychocrusher complete with a telegraphed forward stab (Jedi can't defend along one axis, apparently) and two other guys dying within seconds, you have the executive decision to not use professional stand-ins for two of the baddest mo'fo's in the series and instead let two older actors shuffle around like they're battling for the remote control. Sidious at least comes off as looking better than the Jedi, keeping him at bay for awhile, poking at his sternum, and doing a completely out of the blue table flip attack. Mace, for his part, looks like a weary parent fencing with a hyperactive child, and suddenly 'winning' the fight with a front kick is laughable. This scene could have been serviced with professionals using good fencing technique to provide a frantic but still-polished duel to satisfy the honor of both parties. No front kick.

Then you have Anakin versus Obi-Wan, the much anticipated duel of the ages. We've been dying to know how this happened for years. Or at least, I think we were. In ANH, the idea was that Obi-Wan was the master and Vader the student, and their roles had reversed. The implication was, for me at least, that a younger Obi-Wan had probably stepped on Ana-Vader's neck and then hewed off some limbs to seal the deal. What we got instead was some Errol Flynning and general rubbish.

See above for the gifs. You could intersperse those with "I HAET JEDI" and "ANYKIN STAHP I LUV U K" and the whole fight is recreated. Add some selectively hot lava and you're all set. In the OT, fights were extentions of the emotions and drama between the two characters, often being secondary to the story and straightforward in their approach. We didn't care quite as much that ANH's duel is technically boring because the drama was potent. That same impact is absent from many PT duels, which simply take place "because they are cool" and seem contrived.

Also, the idea of AotC ending like this amuses me:

DOOKU: Master Yoda, we meet again. Let's fight.

YODA: *Disarms Dooku, crushes his escape vehicle* Win, I do, *****.

7. Yoda's Characterization is Bad.

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/112500/Dark-Yoda--112660.jpg

Yoda is like that lovable uncle who plays pranks on people and yet always has a hidden gem of wisdom. He has experience and compassion and a strange taste in food. Even when he was severe, he was still a loving teacher, and probably the moral center of the OT in many ways.

Fast-backwards to the PT, and he's a totally different person. He is cranky, given to abrupt and final judgments, controls the Jedi with an iron clawed fist, and makes bad decisions constantly. This is a huge problem of consistency, but it's also a huge problem for OT fans; Yoda was our strange but lovable uncle figure. We expect him to be there, offering the ultimate advise and testing us without us truly knowing it. The idea that he would be instrumental in teaching Obi/Ani was exciting. I just wish we had gotten that same concept in final form.

Let's briefly go over Yoda's unaccountable changes or decisions:

- He dismisses the possibility of the Sith returning.
- He is blind to Anakin's different needs as a student. (Indeed, Mace and Yoda are uncaring at best of young Skywalker)
- He is quick to marshal the clones and go to war.
- He is unwilling to use any method to stop Dooku besides force.
- He stopped Sith lightning with his face, which he should have expected.
- He is often humorless, and stoic to the extreme.
- He doesn't come off as wise so much as old and stuck in his ways.

If this were any other character, I'd say "Well, perhaps the OT is a showing of Yoda making amends for his earlier failures". Except that this doesn't follow; Yoda is a 900 year old Jedi Master, having studied the Force and the Jedi longer than anyone else, and he's almost comically unsuited to making any good decisions in the PT. I understand that he cannot retcon by virtue of being wise, but it's extremely difficult to point out any good advise he offered (that wasn't offered by a youngling and so blatantly obvious it makes me question Obi-Wan's analytical powers).

Here is where EU really shines: Dark Rendezvous reconciles what we've seen before with a playful, mischievious Yoda, who is kind and compassionate and wise. A mentor figure much needed in a chaotic time, this one is. Even more to the point, he's working with children, helping Scout and Whie against his former student, in a reunion that is both sad and compelling. It remains perhaps one of the best works of EU the series has ever seen, and the star of it all is a certain tiny green Jedi Master.

That doppleganger we got in the PT is an imposter.

--

Update: Nearly hitting the character limit again. Thank you for feedback, except for those who are butt-hurt.

Also, OP is not mad. OP is bored and has a lot of down-time. It won't last.

6. It Makes the Setting Smaller

http://alienbee.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/sw7.jpg

Far, far away, in a galaxy vast and full of hundreds of thousands if not millions of space-flight-capable civilizations, you will encounter exactly 20 planets and maybe 30 unique characters relevant to the plot. In this exotic world of infinite possibilities, like almost everyone will know everyone. It's like Six Degrees of Bacon in Space!

Part of the draw of large settings is in their possibilities and growth. However, GL was never quite interested in world-building so much as backdrop-for-my-myth making. He never intended for anything to exist before or after his story (canonically), never intended to release tons of historical information like Martin or Tolkien would have done (or even Wizards of the Coast), and his magnum opus was just a hero arc tale with a particularly fancy setting.

This wasn't particularly noticing in the OT, because everything was novel. Tatooine, Bespin, Han, Luke, Yoda, etc. were all new characters and not recycled. We learned about them for the first time, and they were key to understanding the story. Unlike the faults on this list, they were not unnecessary.

Then the PT comes and shakes all that up. Suddenly, Anakin built C3PO. Suddenly, R2 is Padme's Jeeves droid. Suddenly, Boba Fett is relevant to the story. Suddenly, Chewbacca gets a cameo. Suddenly, Tatooine is a big part of all three films. Suddenly suddenly.

Callbacks are not in themselves bad things. When they are thrown in for no reason other than to throw it in, then they are now bad things. The droids can somewhat get a pass in being in the prequels because of their common traits - they are relatively static, they are amusing, and they live for a long time. How they got there is rather ham-fisted, however. To avoid the "they know the whole plot" issue from the OT, they simply had the droids memory erased at the end of the PT, which is kind of a cop-out, but is at least something from the OT.

Boba Fett is another thing. I realize he is Mr. Fanservice with his... whatever it is that he has appealing. I personally barely noticed the guy when I watched the OT as a child, and still don't quite see the draw. The PT, however, makes it apparent that he is supposed to be relevant (even though he could be replaced by just about anyone) in the clone wars story development. The only good thing out of this tie-in is Jango, who is an original character in his own right, actually likeable, and criminally underused. (Jango's death is however, much better than Boba's) The appearance of the Fetts is jarring when you consider the possibilities of the bounty hunter who tracks down Han Solo just happens to be the same one who is a clone of the guy who was the template for the clone army, and who lost his father to evil jedi, etc. It's like the guy who hit your car in NYC just happens to be the dentist that your cousin went to when she was knocked out and molested. What are the odds?

Also, this: Chewbacca knows Yoda. My guess is that wookies either have the long term memory of goldfish or he was similarly mind-wiped at the end of the PT. Given Revan's treatment at the hand of the Jedi Council and Yoda's crankiness, I can't rule this out yet. I only wish that such powers of brain bleach were available to the rest of us. His appearance had zero impact on the story. He could have been replaced by a generic wookie, a human ally, or a goalpost and the story would have remained the same.

Now, for the counterargument of "They are fan favorites and including them pleases the fans". Well, a fan favorite of mine would be Obi-Wan juggling planets with his mind and being the real father to Luke and Leia, but that doesn't make it good storytelling. The idea here is to be objective about story elements which are distracting and unnecessary, and the way in which 'everyone knows each other' makes the PT that much weaker.

5. The Immersion Level is Affected.

http://www.themovieblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/lucas-green-screen.jpg

This particular gripe could be extended to many modern movies, but the PT gets this treatment specifically because the same director did more with less. In terms of immersion, one of the big factors, even subconsciously, is that the actors or characters are really there. This helps your mind create the illusion that this fictional setting exists; that it matters.

The PT could care less.

Compare the following:

http://application.denofgeek.com/pics/film/crimes.starwars/07.jpg

(This image has been clipped to prevent screen stretching. Click here for a full view.)

The maxim of "more is better" is taken to its logical extreme here. Most of the interior sets are bare floors with green backdrops, for gratuitous CGI. This actually happened:

http://www.moviestillsdb.com/media/pictures/m/e4/e4f22cffa7faa2ed7a3275559039a914.jpg

Now, credit to the many actors and special effects makers who did the best with the tools they had; I lump zero blame on them. I dump all of the blame on GL for being lazy in leaning too heavily on CGI, cutting into the realistic ambiance the OT had in spades, and generally making the PT look like a poster child for Conspicuous CG.

Why is this unnecessary, you ask as you dab the sweat from your furrowed brow? Like I said, GL has done more with much less. That's not to say modern improvements shouldn't be used; the OT would be weak if they had been content with the lightsaber technology of the first film. No, the point is that technology should not be smashed in the user's retinas and used as a crutch to avoid creating settings with pathos. The actors themselves suffer when they have to interact with almost nothing, as if the Baroque period had never come to pass.

If any of you have ever been to say, a historical house or building, a castle, or a museum, a fortress or even an older cargo ship, you are immediately confronted with the gravity of your surroundings. The weight and age is apparent. The smell is often atrocious. And the countless scratches, dents, and scars of time are everywhere. Settings can be made to have this, and sometimes are quite convincing, at least to a cursory glance. CGI can attempt this, but often always comes out as inconsistent or imperfect (or even too perfect) and we notice. And when we notice, even for a second, that is one less second we're engrossed and engaged. And the story suffers for it.

http://www.geeksofdoom.com/GoD/img/2014/01/star-wars-set-photos-18.jpg
^ The only thing fake in that picture is Harrison Ford's joy.

> Creates thread expressing butthurt across five back-to-back posts
> Complains about butthurt

lol

Anywho, there's a lot of valid criticism to be made about the prequels.

But your issue with PT power levels rings hollow: you're A-okay with the abundance of transparent wank in the EU as long as it pertains to ancient characters, presumably symptomatic of your real-world interest and educational focus in history; e.g. you tend to romanticize the bygone days like many historians. But just like modern-USA would take ancient Sparta to the curb militarily, I don't see the problem with powerful characters existing in "contemporary" settings in fiction. And as DARTH POWER mentions, the OT is careful to note Anakin's extraordinary power; granted, they never explicitly lampshade his prophesied status, but it wasn't a total asspull.

Likewise, I find your criticism of Yoda's portrayal similarly flawed. The character is portrayed differently because he behaves differently. The philosophies espoused in the OT are the product of his failures in the PT. In the OT, Yoda never touches a lightsaber and ostensibly condemns aggression and war; this is because, in the PT, his attacks failed spectacularly to defeat his enemies and war was the ultimate tool of the Sith to defeat the Jedi. Even then, though, Yoda and Obi-Wan reveal themselves by urging Luke to pursue and kill Vader-- which ironically nearly drives Luke to the dark side and risks creating an even bigger threat. Yoda's character arc is lampshaded by Stover's ROTS novel, TCW, and a number of commentaries; it wasn't unintentional nor was it misplaced. The PT is an exploration of the Jedi's great failure and the Sith's great triumph; Yoda's behavior is commensurate with that.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
e's a lot of valid criticism to be made about the prequels.

But your issue with PT power levels rings hollow: you're A-okay with the abundance of transparent wank in the EU as long as it pertains to ancient characters, presumably symptomatic of your real-world interest and educational focus in history; e.g. you tend to romanticize the bygone days like many historians.

Actually, no. If you read what I wrote I said that the power creep was bad. Whether or not I defend higher showings with actual feats in theoretical versus battles in another sub-forum is ultimately irrelevant to the points I am making here, because whether X happened isn't a judgment call on should X happen.



But not because the modern US military is physically better with the same fighting style or are smarter or faster; it is a difference of technology. This is a false analogy.



Granted, something was noted that he was powerful;, but not the best ever. And again this ignores the relative usefulness of the development to the overall plot (in other words, misses the forest for the trees).



Except my complaint is because of what is evident. He behaves differently, and he is mostly inconsistent with his established role in the OT.



Except that this is a self-injected interpretation, using the Historian's Fallacy. More specifically, you say that the difference in Yoda's behavior in the OT is tied to lessons he's learned during the PT, even though this character development is never touched upon nor explicitly stated, and the OT came first, meaning the PT would bear the burden of explaining why he previously acted different. At no point does Yoda go "Oh, violence is suddenly bad. My mistake! Better not do that again."



They stated he had to confront Vader, and Yoda in particular advised caution and restraint, and wanted to teach Luke more. Luke didn't listen, but thankfully it turned out for the best.



Yet again, inconsistent with his position in the OT as a wise mentor. It would make far more sense if Yoda were still wise but he was simply not a fighter and therefore could not prevent the Sith from taking hold, instead of being an obstructive bureaucrat with his nebulous warnings and blatant inactivity towards a growing Sith threat.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Actually, no. If you read what I wrote I said that the power creep was bad. Whether or not I defend higher showings with actual feats in theoretical versus battles in another sub-forum is ultimately irrelevant to the points I am making here, because whether X happened isn't a judgment call on should X happen.

I did read what you wrote and I'm simply unconvinced by it. It seems more likely that, again, as a man who is extremely knowledgeable and interested in real-world history, you would have a tendency to romanticize bygone eras and transpose that bias into the fictional medium. Therefore, tropes that emphasize an Older Is Better narrative are more readily accepted by you.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
But not because the modern US military is physically better with the same fighting style or are smarter or faster; it is a difference of technology. This is a false analogy.

No, my point is that Sparta would still be effortlessly (and I really want to emphasize the lack of effort for spite) be crushed by a more modern power. Sometimes older isn't better, bro. Sometimes older is just older. Sometimes shit gets better with time.

(That's me being generous: let's be honest, this is almost always the case.)

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Granted, something was noted that he was powerful;, but not the best ever. And again this ignores the relative usefulness of the development to the overall plot (in other words, misses the forest for the trees).

I'm not defending the idea that Anakin needed to be a prophesied messiah figure with an unprecedented Force potential; he didn't. I'm just explaining to you that it wasn't a total asspull.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Except my complaint is because of what is evident. He behaves differently, and he is mostly inconsistent with his established role in the OT.

Which, as I said, is because he is different from his depiction in the OT.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Except that this is a self-injected interpretation, using the Historian's Fallacy. More specifically, you say that the difference in Yoda's behavior in the OT is tied to lessons he's learned during the PT, even though this character development is never touched upon nor explicitly stated, and the OT came first, meaning the PT would bear the burden of explaining why he previously acted different. At no point does Yoda go "Oh, violence is suddenly bad. My mistake! Better not do that again."

...Are you telling me that such things must be explicitly stated via Word of God for you to draw conclusions?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
They stated he had to confront Vader, and Yoda in particular advised caution and restraint, and wanted to teach Luke more. Luke didn't listen, but thankfully it turned out for the best.

You should rewatch the film, bro. Yoda wanted more time with Luke so as to fully prepare him for fighting Vader; he thought Luke would get his ass kicked by prematurely engaging the Sith Lord. But as he told Luke in the same film, "Only a Jedi Knight, with the Force as his ally, will conquer Vader and his Emperor."

Yoda wasn't endorsing an emotional confrontation with Vader, wherein the two discuss their feelz. Yoda expected Luke to kill him. That much is evident.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Yet again, inconsistent with his position in the OT as a wise mentor. It would make far more sense if Yoda were still wise but he was simply not a fighter and therefore could not prevent the Sith from taking hold, instead of being an obstructive bureaucrat with his nebulous warnings and blatant inactivity towards a growing Sith threat.

Says you.

Yoda's depiction isn't the same as his OT portrayal by design. It's not narrative inconsistency; it's character development.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
No, my point is that Sparta would still be effortlessly (and I really want to emphasize the lack of effort for spite) be crushed by a more modern power. Sometimes older isn't better, bro. Sometimes older is just older. Sometimes shit gets better with time.

(That's me being generous: let's be honest, this is almost always the case.)

But that doesn't happen with Jedi and Sith. They don't advance in terms of technology, their power is dependent upon personal Force ability and training. Force powers don't show any progress, they are still the same techniques and Jedi still use the same skills that were taught 4000 years ago.

A more accurate comparison would be between, say, a Spartan and a modern day swordsman. They would both by fighting with almost identical weapons and it would be purely about their physical ability and skill.

Or perhaps a martial artist from 2000 years ago with one today or something. Same concept.

Originally posted by Nephthys
But that doesn't happen with Jedi and Sith. They don't advance in terms of technology, their power is dependent upon personal Force ability and training. Force powers don't show any progress, they are still the same techniques and Jedi still use the same skills that were taught 4000 years ago.

A more accurate comparison would be between, say, a Spartan and a modern day swordsman. They would both by fighting with almost identical weapons and it would be purely about their physical ability and skill.

Or perhaps a martial artist from 2000 years ago with one today or something. Same concept.

Per an interpretation of the EU. According to George, though, the modern Jedi of the prequels represent their golden age. Using the EU to try to refute George's reasoning is silly.

I'm pretty sure Arca Jeth's entry in either Power of the Jedi sourcebook or the Jedi Academy Training Manual claims that lightsaber dueling had advanced over the years.

It's the latter source.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Per an interpretation of the EU. According to George, though, the modern Jedi of the prequels represent their golden age. Using the EU to try to refute George's reasoning is silly.

That doesn't make it incorrect. Jedi are Warrior Monks. Theres no more reason a PT Jedi would be superior to the older era Jedi than a modern day Kung Fu master would be superior to one from an earlier age (I don't know how old Kung Fu is). They would still fight with lightsaber and use the Force in much the same way. So there shouldn't be a huge gap between them as per your analogy. A modern soldier would just shoot a Spartan, which is why theres no contest between them. Two Jedi from different eras would just lightsaber fight.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
I did read what you wrote and I'm simply unconvinced by it. It seems more likely that, again, as a man who is extremely knowledgeable and interested in real-world history, you would have a tendency to romanticize bygone eras and transpose that bias into the fictional medium. Therefore, tropes that emphasize an Older Is Better narrative are more readily accepted by you.

Which is unfounded entirely when I am specifically bitching about power creep quite often, expressing my disgust for "older" content like Dark Empire Luke's TK or Simus' head surviving, and ultimately irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The award winning question was this: "Is Anakin's raw potential relevant to the plot?" The answer is, from this side, no, it is not. It offers no additional facets to the storyline, it doesn't alter our perception of the OT material, and it's largely useless. That it doesn't jive with established EU (even if that EU was stupid) is more to the point.

You seem to think this is some great time to address your beef with me; it's not. You're just digging for something to squabble about.



Except again, you're misusing the example. I've said before that older Sith and Jedi were on average better than the newer ones because of higher showings and advanced knowledge in the same fields both utilize (the Force, and dueling). Sparta, a Bronze-aged melee-oriented smaller fighting force versus a voluntary modern-aged multi-disciplinary range-oriented US military is a bad analogy.



You need to air out your panties; they're bunched up. Go get laid.



And I granted both you and DP that some mention was made. That does not change its relevance to the plot. Red herring mode, activate?



So to refute my point, you're restating what I take issue with?

How does this even follow?



I'm telling you that your assumption is not strongly supported by the source material, and Word of God would be definitive if it were present.

It would be like Thorin Oakenshield being a dick to Bilbo without any greed/Arkenstone context whatsoever; it wouldn't be consistent and it would beg for a proper explanation. If a proper explanation were not provided, it would be an example of bad storytelling. SW is not a series noted for its deep, hidden, or otherwise non-explicit story mechanics; this isn't rocket science.



I've seen it many times, since before you were born. Bro.



Yes, but he didn't say "WTF murder the asshat lol". He was not happy with the arrangement, and ultimately it was a lack of killing Vader which had the best end-result. Had he simply killed him, he would have died at the Emperor's hands. The moral message of the OT was that violence is not always the answer, and the Jedi are about preserving life. The PT largely lacked this message, and Yoda was not the same individual, in practice and in preach.



K.



YOU: If X comes in later in the series and acts totally different, without appropriate in-story explanation as to why, it is character development.

#wut.

Are you going to use this thread as a reference for when you apply to work at Cracked?

PT era is better then the shittyass old trilogy with snotty princesses mercenaries chewbacca who is actually cool and luke who is cooler after return of the jedi. And the only thing that's remotely about the original trilogy is the TFU timeline. I like CW Era and PT era because of plagueis, clones, awesome action and a pretty good plot

Originally posted by PTforthewin
PT era is better then the shittyass old trilogy with snotty princesses mercenaries chewbacca who is actually cool and luke who is cooler after return of the jedi. And the only thing that's remotely about the original trilogy is the TFU timeline. I like CW Era and PT era because of plagueis, clones, awesome action and a pretty good plot
Awh, it's his first period, how adorable. ^.^

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Which is unfounded entirely when I am specifically bitching about power creep quite often, expressing my disgust for "older" content like Dark Empire Luke's TK or Simus' head surviving, and ultimately irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I interpret this to mean you concede that the pre-film EU sucks and that Yoda: Dark Rendezvous is better than everything ever.

And I am pleased.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The award winning question was this: "Is Anakin's raw potential relevant to the plot?" The answer is, from this side, no, it is not. It offers no additional facets to the storyline, it doesn't alter our perception of the OT material, and it's largely useless. That it doesn't jive with established EU (even if that EU was stupid) is more to the point.

Anakin's raw potential is absolutely relevant to the plot: it's the very reason why he's of interest to the Jedi and why Palpatine intensely pursues him.

Is it necessary that he be a prophesied messiah figure whose connection to the Force be unsurpassed in all of time? Of course not, but you could apply that argument to pretty much every superwanked character in any Star Wars setting.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Except again, you're misusing the example. I've said before that older Sith and Jedi were on average better than the newer ones because of higher showings and advanced knowledge in the same fields both utilize (the Force, and dueling). Sparta, a Bronze-aged melee-oriented smaller fighting force versus a voluntary modern-aged multi-disciplinary range-oriented US military is a bad analogy.

And again, you've consistently demonstrated a casual acceptance of EU wankery so long as it pertains to chronologically older characters and settings. Your issue here seems to be that, as far as George Lucas is concerned, the films revolve around a number of enormously powerful figures who aren't total feebs in comparison to their forefathers.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Go get laid.

Believe me, I'm working on it.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
And I granted both you and DP that some mention was made. That does not change its relevance to the plot.

...Except we've already established that Anakin being a prodigy is directly relevant to the plot of the prequels and commensurate with the storyline of the original trilogy.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
So to refute my point, you're restating what I take issue with?

How does this even follow?

Your complaint is that he behaves differently in the PT than in the OT; my response is that he is different in the PT than in the OT. It follows that someone will behave differently at an earlier point in their life (X) than in a later part (Y) when the distance between X and Y is replete with critical events and developments.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I'm telling you that your assumption is not strongly supported by the source material, and Word of God would be definitive if it were present.

It would be like Thorin Oakenshield being a dick to Bilbo without any greed/Arkenstone context whatsoever; it wouldn't be consistent and it would beg for a proper explanation. If a proper explanation were not provided, it would be an example of bad storytelling. SW is not a series noted for its deep, hidden, or otherwise non-explicit story mechanics; this isn't rocket science.

Except that it is strongly supported by the source material and Word of God has remarked as much in various commentaries and interviews. You're pissy because TPM didn't include a textual explanation for Yoda's character arc in the opening crawl? You've gone to great lengths to establish yourself as someone who prefers darker, subtler works (lol Batman), you seem awfully perturbed that you weren't flat-out told what to think.

Which leads me to believe you're simply butthurt and fabricating a number of transparent reasons to justify it.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I've seen it many times, since before you were born. Bro.

Yes, we get it, you're old.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Yes, but he didn't say "WTF murder the asshat lol". He was not happy with the arrangement, and ultimately it was a lack of killing Vader which had the best end-result. Had he simply killed him, he would have died at the Emperor's hands. The moral message of the OT was that violence is not always the answer, and the Jedi are about preserving life.

A message to which even OT!Yoda only pays lip-service and casually abandons when shit hits the fan. For all his newfound wisdom and restraint, we still see vestiges in the original trilogy of the person he was in the prequels: "Destroy the Sith, we must!"

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The PT largely lacked this message, and Yoda was not the same individual, in practice and in preach.

Because, for the last time, he wasn't the same individual. His experiences and epiphanies changed him between trilogies, though not entirely. There is continuity there; you just have a hard time appreciating the fact that Yoda is a dynamic character and the prequels, by design, depict him as a well-intentioned but deeply flawed leader who utterly fails to prevent a dark virtue thanks, in part, to arrogance, detachment, and ruthlessness.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
YOU: If X comes in later in the series and acts totally different, without appropriate in-story explanation as to why, it is character development.

#wut.

YOU: I NEED WEDGE TO FLY AROUND WITH A BANNER TACKED ON TO HIS X-WING EXPLAINING, IN VIVID DETAIL, WHY A YOUNGER YODA BEHAVES DIFFERENTLY FROM AN OLDER YODA BECAUSE NO ONE EVER CHANGES IN LIFE EVER

?

The PT is alright IMO. I feel like the EU for it really irons out the crinkles.

Originally posted by The Merchant
The PT is alright IMO. I feel like the EU for it really irons out the crinkles.

Yeah but it shouldn't have to.

I adore the EU but I understand that other people may not and these other people should not have to look for additional material to "iron out the crinkles" as you put it. The movies should be able tell their stories without needing supplementary material to provide clarification. That is one of the biggest problems with the PT.

Movie novelisations and EU novels are meant to add depth to the setting, not plug up plot holes.

I did not need to read this to know the PT sucks but good read nonetheless.

Still better than SWTOR.

So bitter.

Glad I'm not the only one who got that impression from Janus's posts.

The PT is nothing compared to KOTOR. Even SWTOR is better

I'll grant you that KotOR is a better executed story than the PT; but the PT's story is better.

But a big fat lol @ SWTOR being better.

Its odd how your main criticism of Swtor is how it rides on the coat-tails of the movies, but ignore the fact that the PT does the exact same to the OT, by shoehorning in stuff like R2, C3PO, Boba Fett etc etc.

Pretty much the whole PT coasts on the success and iconography of the original movies.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Its odd how your main criticism of Swtor is how it rides on the coat-tails of the movies, but ignore the fact that the PT does the exact same to the OT, by shoehorning in stuff like R2, C3PO, Boba Fett etc etc.

Shoe-horning in R2, C-3PO, Chewbacca, and Boba were all lackluster ideas, Janus is right on the money there.

But the big difference is that the prequels and the originals are part of the same saga and singular storyline. And both were masterminded by Lucas. It's okay for him to make use of his creations, even if I don't like how he did it.

Meanwhile, SWTOR is set thousands of years in the past and was given an opportunity to tell a unique story and failed spectacularly to do so. And Lucas had nothing to do with it. It rides on the popular imagery of the films because it couldn't stand on its own two feet. At the end of the day, the Star Wars films (even the prequels) will be remembered forever; SWTOR will disperse like dust in the wind. No one cares.

Kinda like how everyone will remember Palpatine and no one will ever remember Vitiate. Or Bane. Or Ragnos. Or anyone other than Vader and Maul.

I look forward to reading this pile of wonder you typed.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Shoe-horning in R2, C-3PO, Chewbacca, and Boba were all lackluster ideas, Janus is right on the money there.

But the big difference is that the prequels and the originals are part of the same saga and singular storyline. And both were masterminded by Lucas. It's okay for him to make use of his creations, even if I don't like how he did it.

Meanwhile, SWTOR is set thousands of years in the past and was given an opportunity to tell a unique story and failed spectacularly to do so. And Lucas had nothing to do with it. It rides on the popular imagery of the films because it couldn't stand on its own two feet. At the end of the day, the Star Wars films (even the prequels) will be remembered forever; SWTOR will disperse like dust in the wind. No one cares.

Kinda like how everyone will remember Palpatine and no one will ever remember Vitiate. Or Bane. Or Ragnos. Or anyone other than Vader and Maul.

Man, what a hypocrite. What does is matter if its 'okay' for Lucas to do what he did? I never said it wasn't. It doesn't mean we can't criticise him for it, which you did so evidently you agree. It's 'okay' for Bioware to parallel things from the movies for their game, but you're free to not like how they did it just the same. Its just as lazy and creatively bankrupt in either case.

In Swtor's case though it's perfectly understandable considering they were going up against WoW. You need every ounce of mass appeal you can get when taking a shot at the king.

And L M A O at your pointless little snipes out of nowhere. Trying to start a fight, huh? Yeah, you're not bitter at all. And the prequels can stand on their own two feet? God, hypocrite ahoy! The prequels will be remembered forever as bad. Excuse my while I positively faint of jealousy! And about a million people care last time I checked boyo. Also Bane originated in the prequels so nyeh.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Man, what a hypocrite. What does is matter if its 'okay' for Lucas to do what he did? I never said it wasn't. It doesn't mean we can't criticise him for it, which you did so evidently you agree. It's 'okay' for Bioware to parallel things from the movies for their game, but you're free to not like how they did it just the same. Its just as lazy and creatively bankrupt in either case.

You're free to criticize Lucas for the decision to shoe-horn aforementioned OT elements into the PT all you like; I agreed with the criticism. Ultimately, though, the man is merely utilizing his own creations in a chronologically earlier place in the same storyline.

That's far less egregious or reprehensible than SWTOR, far removed from the central Star Wars saga, shamelessly ripping off film elements and tropes in order to bolster their weak story with George's superior and more iconic product.

Originally posted by Nephthys
In Swtor's case though it's perfectly understandable considering they were going up against WoW. You need every ounce of mass appeal you can get when taking a shot at the king.

And they didn't have the talent or fortitude to craft a unique story that could stand on its own feet. KotOR did that just fine.

Originally posted by Nephthys
And L M A O at your pointless little snipes out of nowhere. Trying to start a fight, huh? Yeah, you're not bitter at all.

Hey, if I were bitter at all, I wouldn't be criticizing George or the prequels at all. The fact that I have done so for years and continue to do so is proof enough that I'm able to look at both sides of this just fine. You're the one who has historically had a difficult time admitting SWTOR's flaws.

Originally posted by Nephthys
And the prequels can stand on their own two feet? God, hypocrite ahoy! The prequels will be remembered forever as bad. Excuse my while I positively faint of jealousy! And about a million people care last time I checked boyo. Also Bane originated in the prequels so nyeh.



The prequels, though connected to the OT narratively, tell an entirely different story. The originals depicted a relatively straightforward escapist tale: a band of do-gooders taking down an evil empire with a young man undergoing a hero's journey at the center. The prequels depict a more morally ambiguous story of a Byronic hero's corruption, the moral failures of the galaxy's well-intentioned protectors, and the engrossing success of a villain who manipulates a republic into legitimizing his tyranny. Two very different stories connected by a single, overarching narrative. The prequels, for better or worse, stand up on their own.

You can dislike it all you want; there's plenty about it to dislike. I'm not the one who has a problem acknowledging flaws for a certain era.

http://fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/singlespeed/866779d1391317367-full-suspension-ss-adjustable-travel-what-if-im-not-sure-if-serious-trolling-thumb.jpg

Can't I do both?

Originally posted by The_Tempest
You're free to criticize Lucas for the decision to shoe-horn aforementioned OT elements into the PT all you like; I agreed with the criticism. Ultimately, though, the man is merely utilizing his own creations in a chronologically earlier place in the same storyline.

That's far less egregious or reprehensible than SWTOR, far removed from the central Star Wars saga, shamelessly ripping off film elements and tropes in order to bolster their weak story with George's superior and more iconic product.

Yeah and ultimately Bioware is just including elements we see in the OT like Star Destroyers and Moffs a bit earlier than we thought they originated. And having Vitiate be similar to Nihilus by utilising virtually the same technique to gain power.

The things Swtor takes are incredibly minor and nitpicky to complain about. Like ship designs and Vitiate wearing a black robe. Oh, the horror!

Originally posted by The_Tempest
And they didn't have the talent or fortitude to craft a unique story that could stand on its own feet. KotOR did that just fine.

They actually did. Nothing they 'ripped-off' has anything to do with the actual story of the Empire vs Republic conflict. All they did was based the game around some iconic elements, which is something they freely admitted to doing on purpose to give the player a chance to play iconic roles and fight iconic archetypes. They were not JUST being lazy. And the fact that there was a secret Sith Empire was established in Kotor and Kotor 2.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Hey, if I were bitter at all, I wouldn't be criticizing George or the prequels at all. The fact that I have done so for years and continue to do so is proof enough that I'm able to look at both sides of this just fine. You're the one who has historically had a difficult time admitting SWTOR's flaws.

Whaaaat? I JUST agreed with you that copying elements of the movies was creatively bankrupt and lazy. I criticised it as soon as we all saw Moffs and Star Destroyers running around in the early information. Its just that I, unlike you, actually played the game and thought 'you know, this game is actually pretty good and those things are really minor and don't really matter very much.' Which is true btw, this is a really dumb and minor point to get so hung up on. You're being a big baby about this.

Originally posted by The_Tempest


The prequels, though connected to the OT narratively, tell an entirely different story. The originals depicted a relatively straightforward escapist tale: a band of do-gooders taking down an evil empire with a young man undergoing a hero's journey at the center. The prequels depict a more morally ambiguous story of a Byronic hero's corruption, the moral failures of the galaxy's well-intentioned protectors, and the engrossing success of a villain who manipulates a republic into legitimizing his tyranny. Two very different stories connected by a single, overarching narrative. The prequels, for better or worse, stand up on their own.

You can dislike it all you want; there's plenty about it to dislike. I'm not the one who has a problem acknowledging flaws for a certain era.

No, it tells a story entirely reliant on the OT to work. By their very definition the Prequels do not stand on their own two feet. This is something inherent in them, its just that Lucas made it worse than it needed to be by cramming in characters and stuff from the OT in order to go 'Remember these guys? Remember how much fun they are? Yeah, they're here too, so now this film is fun too!' The Prequels are stories that no-one really wanted to be told, told to cash in on the success and love for the OT. The whole point is to cash in on how much of a good character Vader is. Which is much more 'egwegious or wepwehensiwle' than Swtor.

Yeah, neither am I. Unlike you though, I'm not unfairly criticising something without giving it a chance.

It's funny how butthurt you are about all this, bro. Going all the way back to TDK, you can't discuss something you love without being reduced to tears.

And I absolutely love it.



Must explain the poor box office performance.

And all the love for the trilogy.

Also, PUH-lease am I butthurt.

That's now two people you've accused of being butthurt, and the fact that you claim that you love it sounds like obvious project. You need not be so transparent.

Originally posted by psmith81992
That's now two people you've accused of being butthurt, and the fact that you claim that you love it sounds like obvious project. You need not be so transparent.

Projection, Beefy.

Janus accused multiple people of butthurt on the previous page; guess he's projecting, too?

lol.

Also, thanks again for feedback. Blax, maybe in answer to your question, and I shall continue this likely Monday. Stuck on mobile all weekend.

TPM hasn't aged very well from the outdated CGI, to the wooden performances of Mccgregor and Liam Neeson. Being twelve and seeing Maul fight the two Jedi, and the podracing must've been amazing for a younger version of myself but I saw it a while back and it hasn't aged well. Its redeemed if nothing more than for the nostalgic factor, how the Plagueis novel tied the loose ends, and for the sheer amount of shit I bought from the movie from the Battle droids, to the Pizza hut/Taco bell pog things, to posters of Darth Maul.

AOTC may be one of the worst movies I've ever seen, the dialogue for the "Romance" is as if a 13 year old wrote it. Dooku isn't too much of a villain, Hayden Christensen's acting is eye-bleedingly horrible and the CGI hasn't aged well either. I remember the Plinkett Review detailing how every scene transition was either:

A. Walking
B. Sitting down
C. Lightsaber fight

And lo and behold it was true, and as a result it was terribly difficult to sit through it and not laugh.

I have nothing but good things for ROTS though. It was much darker and while Anakin as a character was horribly sodomized by Lucas. Elements of his fall from grace and the tragic figure he was, shade through the absolute horror that is Lucas's writing. The Jedi temple march and seeing his face with Yellow eyes is powerful to me, while the problems with the CGI can be dismissed due to powerful acting from Mcdiarmid and Ewan. While its nothing compared to the OT, and there are tons of flaws from Hayden, to the CGI, to the laughable Vader NOOOOOOOOOO scene. Its a good movie with an incredible soundtrack. 7/10

But yes the prequels as a whole are garbage

I'm confused as to where my supposed butthurt was showing through. I thought I covered it up so well! Is it when I called you a 'big baby'? Maybe that was too harsh for you.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Projection, Beefy.

Janus accused multiple people of butthurt on the previous page; guess he's projecting, too?

****ing Iphones. I only looked at Janus' long posts, not his homoerotic argument with you. What I DID notice was you calling everyone butthurt and pretending to love it.

He is sexually frustrated, so naturally he becomes crabby and emotional.

your face is emotional

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/02/article-0-1B1BC089000005DC-692_634x623.jpg

^ This ***** here...

Say what you will about the PT's horrible nature, but when you insult Hayden Christensen, I'l start cutting people.

Dang, this got a bit out of hand.

Hi guy this Gowtham, joined recently in the forum...........due to my interest towards Movies

I really liked the flow of the forum..........its awesome being this forum

How about discussing about upcoming talent in the Movie industry

Will you finish this?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose


7. Yoda's Characterization is Bad.

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/112500/Dark-Yoda--112660.jpg

Yoda is like that lovable uncle who plays pranks on people and yet always has a hidden gem of wisdom. He has experience and compassion and a strange taste in food. Even when he was severe, he was still a loving teacher, and probably the moral center of the OT in many ways.

Fast-backwards to the PT, and he's a totally different person. He is cranky, given to abrupt and final judgments, controls the Jedi with an iron clawed fist, and makes bad decisions constantly. This is a huge problem of consistency, but it's also a huge problem for OT fans; Yoda was our strange but lovable uncle figure. We expect him to be there, offering the ultimate advise and testing us without us truly knowing it. The idea that he would be instrumental in teaching Obi/Ani was exciting. I just wish we had gotten that same concept in final form.

Let's briefly go over Yoda's unaccountable changes or decisions:

- He dismisses the possibility of the Sith returning.
- He is blind to Anakin's different needs as a student. (Indeed, Mace and Yoda are uncaring at best of young Skywalker)
- He is quick to marshal the clones and go to war.
- He is unwilling to use any method to stop Dooku besides force.
- He stopped Sith lightning with his face, which he should have expected.
- He is often humorless, and stoic to the extreme.
- He doesn't come off as wise so much as old and stuck in his ways.

If this were any other character, I'd say "Well, perhaps the OT is a showing of Yoda making amends for his earlier failures". Except that this doesn't follow; Yoda is a 900 year old Jedi Master, having studied the Force and the Jedi longer than anyone else, and he's almost comically unsuited to making any good decisions in the PT. I understand that he cannot retcon by virtue of being wise, but it's extremely difficult to point out any good advise he offered (that wasn't offered by a youngling and so blatantly obvious it makes me question Obi-Wan's analytical powers).

Here is where EU really shines: Dark Rendezvous reconciles what we've seen before with a playful, mischievious Yoda, who is kind and compassionate and wise. A mentor figure much needed in a chaotic time, this one is. Even more to the point, he's working with children, helping Scout and Whie against his former student, in a reunion that is both sad and compelling. It remains perhaps one of the best works of EU the series has ever seen, and the star of it all is a certain tiny green Jedi Master.

That doppleganger we got in the PT is an imposter.

--

Update: Nearly hitting the character limit again. Thank you for feedback, except for those who are butt-hurt.

Also, OP is not mad. OP is bored and has a lot of down-time. It won't last.

thats the whole point of Yoda character in the PT, he's SUPPPOSEd to be vastly different and arrogant because thats what the Jedi were, thats why they were so easily defeated; they suffered from the same hubris that Yoda does, this is why in the OT he is a humble master... he's been humbled.... its a pretty easy arc to follow if you open your eyes

This is the saltiest thread on KMC even tho Syn made threads specifically to cry about Joker, Beni, and DMB.

Now we know who hurt him. It was George.

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
This is the saltiest thread on KMC even tho Syn made threads specifically to cry about Joker, Beni, and DMB.

Are you jelly that you never got one?

You did make a thread about me, I don't remember what was it tho.

Edit: Found it: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=630467

lmao

I remember that thread. It was a great roast session.

Did you ever made a thread about me? mmm

You seem like a likely candidate. At once point you were my most hated person on here. ( Other most hateds have been Beenieboi, Ant and Wolf ).

All of whom I'm on at least ok terms with now ( Beenieboi is a wild card ).

Syn, you're a Low-Testosterone fuggot who gets way too upset over things.

(I'm serious about the testosterone thing, you should really get your hormone levels checked out)

It's probably because I Jack it too often.

Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
It's probably because I Jack it too often.

You should really stop that. Apparently abstention helps with mood, energy levels, weightloss, etc etc.

I originally started up a near constant masturbation cycle cause I thought it would help me lose weight.

Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
It's probably because I Jack it too often.
lol @the capital J

Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
I originally started up a near constant masturbation cycle cause I thought it would help me lose weight.

Nah man. Is this serious lol?

Ejaculation directly increases prolactin, which converts testosterone to DHT.
Abstinence from masterbation increases T-levels, which is one of the best hormones for loosing weight.

****

I wish I could go back in time to warn myself not to read this last page.

PT is horrible indeed.

OT is gold.

This thread got bumped, but not by me -_-

Originally posted by YousufKhan1212
This thread got bumped, but not by me -_-
Nah it was one of your alt's

Got my trainee to watch episodes 1-6 (not in that order). And she loved the whole saga. Her favourite is between Empire and Sith, and least favourite ANH (because it's outdated). But she just loved the entire saga and can't stop going on about it.

Point is when people didn't wait a generation between trilogies (expecting to get the same feeling again they did watching it as kids, then being disappointed when they didn't feel that), and when they're not indoctrinated with this idea that "you must hate the Prequels", then they don't make that distinction between the trilogies and just enjoy the entire story.

The PT was shit because it was shit. Alone, the films TPM and ATOC wouldn't have survived without the Star Wars branding.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Got my trainee to watch episodes 1-6 (not in that order). And she loved the whole saga. Her favourite is between Empire and Sith, and least favourite ANH (because it's outdated). But she just loved the entire saga and can't stop going on about it.

Point is when people didn't wait a generation between trilogies (expecting to get the same feeling again they did watching it as kids, then being disappointed when they didn't feel that), and when they're not indoctrinated with this idea that "you must hate the Prequels", then they don't make that distinction between the trilogies and just enjoy the entire story.
Intellectual capacity to recognize quality storytelling comes with maturity and exploration.

PT saga offers ample enjoyment but is far from quality storytelling.

OT saga is renowned in the sense that Episode IV was a major leap in Sci-Fi storytelling from earlier efforts and Episode V was/is a masterpiece. Episode VI was relatively lacking in quality (the Ewoks part was unnecessary) but capped the story with satisfactory outcome.

Point?

Star Wars enjoyable on the whole but not quality storytelling in large part.

Episode 3 was solid imo, but regardless, 'd say TCW and the eu stuff in general more than make sup for the failings of 1 and 2

Originally posted by Ursumeles
Will you finish this?

I forgot I wrote this. At the time, I had a job with net access and a lot of downtime. Now, I post on KMC while waiting for Steam to patch.

Originally posted by relentless1
thats the whole point of Yoda character in the PT, he's SUPPPOSEd to be vastly different and arrogant because thats what the Jedi were, thats why they were so easily defeated; they suffered from the same hubris that Yoda does, this is why in the OT he is a humble master... he's been humbled.... its a pretty easy arc to follow if you open your eyes

So Yoda became a quirky, likable trickster mentor because he had to move into a crappier place and lost a fight because of lacking a handrail?

Okay.

http://i.imgur.com/pjzDemZ.gif