Mace Windu vs. Darth Sidious

[Darth Angelus]

I think we pretty much agree on everything, or at least have very compatible views of Star Wars.

Originally Posted by C Of K

The expanded universe has become an amusing imitation of the Star Wars universe over the last 15 or so years. Living planets that can travel through hyperspace, darkside sith ships that have a mind of their own, entire civilizations that have no presence in the force, jedi queens, 1,000 year old sith emperors who can do almost anything, 100,000 year old monsters who can do even more...force Wizards/Angels/whatever they are, that seem to be the embodiment of the balance between the lightside and the darkside. All this stuff is so cringe-worthy to me. I've learned to ignore so much that I find laughable about Star Wars, but a lot of fans enjoy it more than the movies. They find it easy to disregard George Lucas. To each his own. Because the end of Star Wars seems to be nowhere in sight, if you wish to like Star Wars, it would almost have to be a requirement that you disregard something. It's not quite a requirement yet, but I think it's getting closer to that point all the time.

I think Expanded Universe stuff you mention can be entertaining. They basically have to invent stuff and loosen the leach on their imagination a little bit in order to not get new Sith plots over and over. A lot of the times, these stories are better written than the Prequels.
But, of course, the far-fetched stuff must be disregarded. Basically, I think the Expanded Universe has to be seen as a continuity of its own. I think of Star Wars in layers of canon, and regard the G-canon (movies) as the core, which is canon to everything. The C-canon (novels, by other authors) is canon to itself (including other works belonging to the same continuity), but not to the G-canon. Which means, basically, that I disregard the Expanded Universe when it comes to this scene

I love redlettermedia! No question about it, as a writer, George Lucas overreached his abilities with the prequels. If you're fine with watching them as pure adventure stories like the original trilogy, they aren't really that bad. If you try to follow the political twists and turns, or the mysteries, you'll quickly see the plot get irreversibly tangled in itself. So far as I can tell, the mystery of Sifo Dyas was never solved in the films, and it doesn't make much sense to leave a plot thread, like the true origin of the clone army, hanging that way. Yes, we know Dooku commissioned them somehow, but Sifo Dyas' part in the whole thing was never made clear.

Agreed. While many fans do have problems with the Prequels and do not feel involved, he expertly put his finger on what is not working with them. It enhanced my understanding of the nature of the Prequel's flaws, no doubt.
The Prequels indeed sort of work as an adventure story, but the plot and the mysteries...let us just say there are A LOT of threads hanging loose. The whole thing is developed further in the newly released novel Darth Plagueis (it was rather well-written), but as redlettermedia would say, we should not have to read some novel to fill in the gaps.
Dialogue and characterisation is leaves a lot to be desired, too. The Prequel characters are way underdeveloped. Most don't even have a personality, but even that is preferred over the annoying, whining brat Anakin. I must say I find it very hard to imagine the cool, awesome suited Vader in Episodes IV-VI as the same person as that silly boy. He was intended to be a good boy initially, and The Phantom Menace, for all its faults, at least got that across.
Which actually brings me to the next point. In spite of my initial impression, it is quite possible that redlettermedia is righ in that Attack of the Clones is actually worse than TPM. The first Prequel at least had a new, cool, if one-dimensional villain. Darth Maul had a style that we had not seen before. Jango was just recycling old stuff (Boba) and Tyranus was, well, Christopher Lee as Sith, much like Mace Windu was Samuel L. Jackson as Jedi. Kudos to Christopher Lee for doing such a great job with what he had. Even Samuel L. Jackson's coolness made his otherwise totally forgettable character somewhat better.
But really, I think Darth Maul was probably the best new character in all of the Prequels, which is sort of sad. He was the only spark of new intention that was not totally silly. And to think that characters like General Grievous would actually make me look back to the TPM villain with a little nostalgia.

Great points that I had never considered before. With the plot of the overall story getting more and more complicated, and the movies all exceeding two hours, George Lucas was left with no way to answer the "what if questions" that needed answering. I once saw a youtube video, ( I wish I could find it now) in which George Lucas, Rick MacCallum, and a few other people had just finished watching Episode 1. The atmosphere in that room was so uncomfortable. No, wait, here it is, another video by redlettermedia... The important part starts at about 1:15 seconds into the video.

Honestly, I don't see why he had to keep it in a specific time format. The story should dictate the time of a movie, not the other way around. But even within the two hour timeframe, there is a lot of silliness in the Prequels that is just dead weight. I think you know what I mean, but I am mostly refering to Jar Jar Binks and the atrocious love story. If he had taken time from that crap, it could go to explaining important plot points, such as the roles of Trade Federation in TPM and Syfo-Dyas in the creation of the clone army. He also needed to flesh out important Jedi on the council, so the tragedy in Episode III would carry some weight. Why should we care for the Jedi order? Their role in the galaxy is apparently important, so knowing the people of the ruling council better would definitely be more important than a lot of the other stuff he wasted time on. But god forbid they take a little Gungan time to make characters like Mace Windu and Ki-Adi Mundi three dimensional. Heck, even Qui-Gon Jinn needed a lot more character development.

And yes, I have seen that video. Rick MacCallum's expression says it all.

It does sort of seem out of character for the emperor to gamble with his own life, but I've come to see him as something of a gambler. One instance in particular, where I know he gambled with his own life was at the beginning of Episode 3. One way or another, he was ultimately responsible for his own kidnapping. I'm certain Lord Sidious made it clear that Chancellor Palpetine was not to be killed by seperatists, and yet, he was stuck in the middle of an enormous battle. The ship he was aboard was scrapped and somehow was able to crash on the planet, with Palpatine's life intact. And yet, your point still stands, that the casual moviegoer wouldn't necessarily pick up on the fact that Palpatine was responsible for his own kidnapping, or the possibility that he threw his own lightsaber away.

I will gladly admit the gambling with his own life was not one of the stronger arguments, which is why it was in paranthesis and with "maybe" in my last post.
I realize, of course, that while the details regarding how his kidnapping was set up was vague to say the least, any possible version of it would include himself as the ultimately responsible. Yet, I think it could be argued that there is a difference between being on a huge ship in battle, probably heavily protected as Dooku's ship, and knowing the Republic would likely not fire on it while he was aboard (he'd act as human shield, ironically), and having Windu's lightsaber less than a foot from his face. He rolls away in the window opening, and I am fairly sure Windu would be faster running on his feet to catch up than than he was rolling. And he has just killed three Jedi, so he could very well have even a Jedi like Windu exploiting that opening, especiallly as Windu considered him to be "too dangerous to be left alive". It is not like Windu bothered to keep Jango alive for trial, either,
But still, this is obviously all speculation, but so are many arguments in this debate. It is not something that settles it. Like I said, from the in-movie implications, I am leaning in the other direction (by similar speculative arguments of motivations). You can just never prove anything, either way, by that type of reasoning on motive when this trilogy is so messy and incoherent on plot points and motivations, so I just tend to go by what I believe Lucas is trying to say in the commentary. It may be a bit of an Occam's Razor approach, or something similar to that, but I have nothing else. Unlike A LOT of fans, I am convinced that one can't really make some kind scientific research on the plot points and motivations to deduce the truth about this. I think that (all too frequent) attitude is vain, naive and a bit arrogant, to be honest. Real, strict, formal logical reasoning only works on some kind of logical system, and the Star Wars Prequels are far too irregular (on plot points and power ratings) to qualify. These movies are not even coherent enough to qualify for reasoning with the less rigid, colloquial meaning of the word "logic", in my opinion. Except by narrow-minded people, of course, who use strong words like "logic" to push what is really just their own speculation upon other. Oh, bloody hell, how I hate that kind. I am glad our discussion is on a much higher level than that. Those people were one of the reasons I quit Star Wars forums.

So far as Yoda and Palpatine are concerned, before the prequels, I never imagined them with lightsabers, and I wish it had remained that way. I considered them both far beyond carrying physical weapons, running around, and jumping all over the place. I liked it when their limits were undefined. They were useful for a few wise words, the half concealed threat of their considerable powers, and maybe a small demonstration here or there, but what we got were two very aged ultimate commandos. Listening to Yoda grunt, and snarl, and generally skitter around like pikachu was disappointing. I think George Lucas decided to make things the way they were in order to please the casual moviegoer, as well as himself. Before Episode 2, people who had always been die-hard Star Wars fans were die-hard Star Wars fans despite the fact that none of them had ever seen Yoda fight. Many die-hard fans loved it, but some hated it. I've come to accept it, but it will never impress me.

To be fair, it did impress me in the beginning, at least Yoda, but I used to like the Prequels more than I do now. Also, to be perfectly correct, I might point out that pulling off the Yoda duels like they did without it looking completely implausible is probably a technically impressive feat, of sorts.
That does not make it good storytelling. Nor does it mean that it creates an emotional connection. For a more mature audience, the duels in the Original Trilogy will always be stronger, especially once the novelty of the flashy stuff and bouncing around has worn off. Authenticity wins in the long run.

Yes, and that point has been well established. These last 3 movies sure don't make it easy to know what's going on.

Sorry if I became a tad repetitive there. I have a tendency to go too far explaining stuff that the other person has already picked up sometimes.

[Huttman]

I've been a strong supporter of Mr. Lucas all through the prequel years, but I can see why some people feel the way they do about him and what he has done to those movies and the original trilogy. I've enjoyed the prequels for what they are, a different take on the universe that he created with the talented people around him. Is he a stubborn man about getting his way? Sure, but that is not the worst quality a person can have when weighed with everything he has done. The scenes where everyone was quiet when he came into the room to overlook some preliminary ideas, well, it's George Lucas people. I would not be acting a fool if he walked in, especially if I was working for him at the time.
That being said, I've not met him (yet), so I'll just again say I accept the prequels and the Clone Wars for what they are, enjoyable romps in that galaxy far, far away. Maybe if I do ever meet him I'll pitch my better explosion for the Executor idea and new trilogies for the old republic, but the weak links in those movies can not come close to ruining them for me. If he ever did make more movies, or this rumored TV show, I'm sure he will take the lessons he learned from the prequels as C of K (hi) said. This has been an interesting thread/discussion, though, and got me to look at things with a little different perspective (although I still did not change my mind about the man).

Oh, a little edit here, I found out just last week he got married in 2006! I had no idea. Maybe that will soften him up a bit, huh? Or maybe, he's dooooomed.....

[Darth Angelus]

Huttman, he obviously has every right, legal and moral, to do as he pleases with his fictional universe. It is his life's work. I would never argue otherwise. Unlike many fans, I also regard his words to be the highest level of canon, unless of course it is utterly impossible.

On the other hand, how the more grown-up part of the audience feels about the Prequels is up to us. He has the right to do what he wants, but he can't expect the fans to be able untangle any incoherent mess that passes for a story and understand how he intended it.

It seems pretty clear he has no great sense of reasonable sizes of numbers (like the size of the clone army) which makes some stuff he'ds say weird. I mean, one does not even need university level knowledge on the subjects to know that not only does physics work differently in Star Wars. Mathematics very much does so, too.

[C Of K]

Originally Posted by Darth Angelus

I think we pretty much agree on everything, or at least have very compatible views of Star Wars.

Definitely. It's a great universe, but there are many flaws in the creation of it.

I think Expanded Universe stuff you mention can be entertaining. They basically have to invent stuff and loosen the leach on their imagination a little bit in order to not get new Sith plots over and over. A lot of the times, these stories are better written than the Prequels.
But, of course, the far-fetched stuff must be disregarded. Basically, I think the Expanded Universe has to be seen as a continuity of its own. I think of Star Wars in layers of canon, and regard the G-canon (movies) as the core, which is canon to everything. The C-canon (novels, by other authors) is canon to itself (including other works belonging to the same continuity), but not to the G-canon. Which means, basically, that I disregard the Expanded Universe when it comes to this scene

The expanded universe can be very entertaining. I recently read the Revan novel, and finished the Fate of the Jedi series. Both were interesting, had their good spots, and their bad ones. I think the problem with carrying on the Star Wars universe at such a break-neck pace, so that fans barely have time to come up for air, is that their plot development almost always suffer, and their creativity definitely suffers. They have a difficult time escaping the Anakin Skywalker redemption story. Exar Kun, Ulique Quel Droma, Darth Revan, Kyp Durron, and Darth Caedus are all examples of "what if Darth Vader's story had turned out a little different?"

In the prequels, George Lucas did revisit certain small themes that were also in the original trilogy, but very rarely were those themes very important to the plot of the prequels. Anakin lost a hand at the end of his second movie, just as Luke did at the end of his second movie. While that can be sort of corny, it isn't all that important. The similarities between the cantina scene, and the bar scene in Episode 2 are also very minor. But the similarities between Darth Vader, and Darth Revan are quite large. The similarities between Darth Caedus and Darth Vader are disturbing. I avoided the entire Darth Caedus series for this very reason.

And then there is George Lucas' ability to come up with completely new technology, that expanded universe creators just don't do very well. It's not uncommon to see Star Destroyers, or Republic Gunships in a setting that takes place nearly 4,000 years before the rise of the empire. The Old Republic game that came out recently even features a Jango Fett looking Republic trooper in one of the trailers.

My problem with the expanded universe is that all too often they don't add to the Star Wars universe so much as they rehash what has already been established, and cook up slightly different scenarios just so it isn't a total carbon copy of what George Lucas did. If they would take time to foster real creativity, the way Timothy Zahn did with his first trilogy, they might be able to do something great. Zahn had no need for a sith lord who need redemption. Grand Admiral Thrawn was an incredibly intelligent villain. Joruus C'Baoth was an insane jedi clone, but even without him, the story was filled with greatness.

The Prequels indeed sort of work as an adventure story, but the plot and the mysteries...let us just say there are A LOT of threads hanging loose. The whole thing is developed further in the newly released novel Darth Plagueis (it was rather well-written), but as redlettermedia would say, we should not have to read some novel to fill in the gaps.

I'll have to pick up a copy of that book soon. I've heard of that book, but I put off getting it.

The Prequel characters are way underdeveloped. Most don't even have a personality, but even that is preferred over the annoying, whining brat Anakin. I must say I find it very hard to imagine the cool, awesome suited Vader in Episodes IV-VI as the same person as that silly boy. He was intended to be a good boy initially, and The Phantom Menace, for all its faults, at least got that across.

I always thought it was something of a mistake to ever show Anakin as a child. I've learned to accept George Lucas' decision, but from the moment I found out that child Anankin would star in Episode 1, I knew the jedi purge would suffer somehow. Sure enough, when it came time to show the fall of the jedi, it wasn't the man in the black suit doing the killing, and it was only glanced over. Before the prequels, I had always imagined Anakin and Obi Wan would have their fateful first showdown at the end of Episode 2, and Darth Vader would have been wreaking havoc for the entirety of Episode 3.

Honestly, I don't see why he had to keep it in a specific time format. The story should dictate the time of a movie, not the other way around. But even within the two hour timeframe, there is a lot of silliness in the Prequels that is just dead weight. I think you know what I mean, but I am mostly refering to Jar Jar Binks and the atrocious love story. If he had taken time from that crap, it could go to explaining important plot points, such as the roles of Trade Federation in TPM and Syfo-Dyas in the creation of the clone army. He also needed to flesh out important Jedi on the council, so the tragedy in Episode III would carry some weight. Why should we care for the Jedi order? Their role in the galaxy is apparently important, so knowing the people of the ruling council better would definitely be more important than a lot of the other stuff he wasted time on. But god forbid they take a little Gungan time to make characters like Mace Windu and Ki-Adi Mundi three dimensional. Heck, even Qui-Gon Jinn needed a lot more character development.

Well, the 2 hour thing isn't all that important, but I would hate to see Star Wars turn into Dune, if you know what I mean. As you say, there is a remedy for all that. Cut out some of the dead weight, or condense it. In the original trilogy, Han and Leia fell in love amidst blasters and lightsaber action. There was no playful romp through the meadow, and you never got to see them lay down to grab 40 winks. Sure, there was all that time between Episodes 4 and 5, but all that happened off screen. The prequel love story slowed down the pace horribly. As a character, Jar Jar was really good for one thing, helping to bring down the Republic. Because of that, I don't mind him being there. I just mind there being so much of him in the first movie. After that one, he stayed out of the way for the most part. I liked Qui Gon, but his character isn't so easy to define. I liked Kit Fisto, but only because he looks cool. Windu played the important role of being the jedi master who gets on your nerves the most. I thought Greivous was a great creation, but he needed a better name, and he was supposed to be a greater threat than he was portrayed as in the movie. To me, Dooku was pure gold, I thought it was brave of George Lucas to kill him in the opening 30 minutes of Episode 3. But your points are well taken. There were characters everywhere, special effects littered the screen, and the plot was so wishy washy that there was no room for proper character development that would perfectly compliment any great story.

But still, this is obviously all speculation, but so are many arguments in this debate. It is not something that settles it. Like I said, from the in-movie implications, I am leaning in the other direction (by similar speculative arguments of motivations). You can just never prove anything, either way, by that type of reasoning on motive when this trilogy is so messy and incoherent on plot points and motivations, so I just tend to go by what I believe Lucas is trying to say in the commentary. It may be a bit of an Occam's Razor approach, or something similar to that, but I have nothing else. Unlike A LOT of fans, I am convinced that one can't really make some kind scientific research on the plot points and motivations to deduce the truth about this. I think that (all too frequent) attitude is vain, naive and a bit arrogant, to be honest. Real, strict, formal logical reasoning only works on some kind of logical system, and the Star Wars Prequels are far too irregular (on plot points and power ratings) to qualify. These movies are not even coherent enough to qualify for reasoning with the less rigid, colloquial meaning of the word "logic", in my opinion. Except by narrow-minded people, of course, who use strong words like "logic" to push what is really just their own speculation upon other. Oh, bloody hell, how I hate that kind. I am glad our discussion is on a much higher level than that. Those people were one of the reasons I quit Star Wars forums.

Yeah, people often let their passion for the series get in the way. I try not to throw stones at George Lucas, but I also try not to excuse some of the things he did, that I believe should have and could have been done better. The sheer amount of money that he spent on making the prequels should demand a coherent story. The sheer amount of money he was destined to make from the prequels demands a coherent story even more. But I just think he tried to do too much with these movies. He had too many characters, too many special effects and computer graphics. He relied on lightsabers, flashy things and large battle scenes to carry him through it. Small details, and often enough, large details were pushed to the side. While there are a few fans here, I think most of us can agree that Star Wars is far from perfect.

To be fair, it did impress me in the beginning, at least Yoda, but I used to like the Prequels more than I do now. Also, to be perfectly correct, I might point out that pulling off the Yoda duels like they did without it looking completely implausible is probably a technically impressive feat, of sorts.

Technically, it is a wonder they were able to do it. But you would think the technical side of movie-making would be the real challenge these days. It's not. How often have we seen great special effects and computer generated characters like Optimus Prime, or the Hulk, star in movies that actually make no sense whatsoever? The written part of movie-making seems to be the most difficult these days.

Sorry if I became a tad repetitive there. I have a tendency to go too far explaining stuff that the other person has already picked up sometimes.

Oh no. Nothing wrong with repetition. Considering the probability that you've discussed these subjects numerous times with people who refuse to take any of it under consideration, repetition is the way to get your point across. No. What I meant was that I have come to agree with your standpoint. This stuff can't be proven unless George Lucas comes out and gives credit to it, and even then, his explanations might not make much sense. 6 movies is a very ambitious saga. The 30 years of time across which he told the story of that saga is even more ambitious. During that time he became something of a different person with different perspectives, technology advanced, allowing him to do more with his movies, and different ways to do them... I would probably like Star Wars more if the two trilogies weren't so interconnected. It's hard to say, or if the new trilogy had never happened. I don't know. I do know that I continue to revisit Star Wars from time to time, which I guess is a blessing.

Originally Posted by Darth Angelus

I've been a strong supporter of Mr. Lucas all through the prequel years, but I can see why some people feel the way they do about him and what he has done to those movies and the original trilogy. I've enjoyed the prequels for what they are, a different take on the universe that he created with the talented people around him. Is he a stubborn man about getting his way? Sure, but that is not the worst quality a person can have when weighed with everything he has done. The scenes where everyone was quiet when he came into the room to overlook some preliminary ideas, well, it's George Lucas people. I would not be acting a fool if he walked in, especially if I was working for him at the time.

The talent he surrounds himself with is unbelievable. I wish I had half the talent some of those people have. George Lucas' own imagination and drive is amazing. I think if anything, his biggest flaw is his ability to overreach his limits. No matter how much money someone has, everyone has limits. George Lucas is deserving of praise for so many accomplishments, it's no wonder that his supporters can only be equaled by his detractors. He's done a lot of things, and the more work you publish, the more chances you give people to criticize your shortcomings. George Lucas sacrificed the validity of his plot for something he thought was more important. I'm not entirely sure what that something was, because I wasn't there while he was making those movies. The scene in the video that I posted, where he, Rick MacCallum, Ben Burt and maybe a few others were watching Episode 1 is proof that George Lucas has learned to live with his sacrifices. But that scene also proves that all in attendance realize that the movie had pretty big problems.

Maybe if I do ever meet him I'll pitch my better explosion for the Executor idea and new trilogies for the old republic, but the weak links in those movies can not come close to ruining them for me. If he ever did make more movies, or this rumored TV show, I'm sure he will take the lessons he learned from the prequels as C of K (hi) said. This has been an interesting thread/discussion, though, and got me to look at things with a little different perspective (although I still did not change my mind about the man).

Someone has to let him know about that explosion. I don't think he fixed it for the blue-ray release. It'll ahve to change before he comes to the 3-D version.

Oh, a little edit here, I found out just last week he got married in 2006! I had no idea. Maybe that will soften him up a bit, huh? Or maybe, he's dooooomed.....

Ah. Is marriage THAT bad? Lol

[Darth Angelus]

Originally Posted by C Of K

Definitely. It's a great universe, but there are many flaws in the creation of it.

Yes, in terms of imagination, I would say it comes very near fantanstic, and the sheer creativity behind it is stunning. If the storytelling part had gotten more work in the Prequels, I see no reason they could not have become classics themselves.

[quote/]The expanded universe can be very entertaining. I recently read the Revan novel, and finished the Fate of the Jedi series. Both were interesting, had their good spots, and their bad ones. I think the problem with carrying on the Star Wars universe at such a break-neck pace, so that fans barely have time to come up for air, is that their plot development almost always suffer, and their creativity definitely suffers. They have a difficult time escaping the Anakin Skywalker redemption story. Exar Kun, Ulique Quel Droma, Darth Revan, Kyp Durron, and Darth Caedus are all examples of "what if Darth Vader's story had turned out a little different?"[/quote]
I am currently reading Apocalypse (don't the titles need work, too?), the last novel of the Fate of the Jedi series. It has been ok overall, I think, but nothing I have been immensely excited about.

In the prequels, George Lucas did revisit certain small themes that were also in the original trilogy, but very rarely were those themes very important to the plot of the prequels. Anakin lost a hand at the end of his second movie, just as Luke did at the end of his second movie. While that can be sort of corny, it isn't all that important. The similarities between the cantina scene, and the bar scene in Episode 2 are also very minor. But the similarities between Darth Vader, and Darth Revan are quite large. The similarities between Darth Caedus and Darth Vader are disturbing. I avoided the entire Darth Caedus series for this very reason.

Lucas has admitted he has mad small things similar on purpose, "so that they rhymed" in his own words, as shown in redlettermedia's videos. That is small enough to not take up too much room, so it does not bother me all that much. It is not what I'd call one of the greatest Prequel flaws, even though it is a bit disturbing to the extent in which it is a symptom of the fact that he relies a bit too much Original Trilogy nostalgia.
I read the Darth Ceadus series, and I thought it was well-written. There wasn't anything really new in it, true, but they did step away from the overused redemption theme.

And then there is George Lucas' ability to come up with completely new technology, that expanded universe creators just don't do very well. It's not uncommon to see Star Destroyers, or Republic Gunships in a setting that takes place nearly 4,000 years before the rise of the empire. The Old Republic game that came out recently even features a Jango Fett looking Republic trooper in one of the trailers.

My problem with the expanded universe is that all too often they don't add to the Star Wars universe so much as they rehash what has already been established, and cook up slightly different scenarios just so it isn't a total carbon copy of what George Lucas did. If they would take time to foster real creativity, the way Timothy Zahn did with his first trilogy, they might be able to do something great. Zahn had no need for a sith lord who need redemption. Grand Admiral Thrawn was an incredibly intelligent villain. Joruus C'Baoth was an insane jedi clone, but even without him, the story was filled with greatness.

Agreed, although I admit there are limits to what I could invent, too, when it comes to new technology that is not too far-fetched. Still, they could definitely have made more new ship designs instead of using Star Destroyers.
Grand Admiral Thrawn may very well be the best written Expanded Universe character ever. Such complexity. And the way he was described in Outbound Flight was nothing less than brilliant, too.

I'll have to pick up a copy of that book soon. I've heard of that book, but I put off getting it.

It is not like it can fix the Prequels, but it does smooth out the flaws a little bit. It was a great work, that way, in my opinion.

I always thought it was something of a mistake to ever show Anakin as a child. I've learned to accept George Lucas' decision, but from the moment I found out that child Anankin would star in Episode 1, I knew the jedi purge would suffer somehow.

True, the idea of including a child Anakin was doubtful to say the least, but I was mostly referring to him in Episodes II and III. In Episode I, he at least got the message across that Anakin was a good person to begin with. However, in Episode II, he had already changed personality A LOT off-screen, so we never really see that development.

Sure enough, when it came time to show the fall of the jedi, it wasn't the man in the black suit doing the killing, and it was only glanced over. Before the prequels, I had always imagined Anakin and Obi Wan would have their fateful first showdown at the end of Episode 2, and Darth Vader would have been wreaking havoc for the entirety of Episode 3.

I am not sure of the exact order I imagined it. I know most fans imagine it like you did, though.
However, in a way, it makes sense for Obi-Wan to duel him when he has already done a bit of damage.

Well, the 2 hour thing isn't all that important, but I would hate to see Star Wars turn into Dune, if you know what I mean. As you say, there is a remedy for all that. Cut out some of the dead weight, or condense it. In the original trilogy, Han and Leia fell in love amidst blasters and lightsaber action. There was no playful romp through the meadow, and you never got to see them lay down to grab 40 winks. Sure, there was all that time between Episodes 4 and 5, but all that happened off screen. The prequel love story slowed down the pace horribly. As a character, Jar Jar was really good for one thing, helping to bring down the Republic. Because of that, I don't mind him being there. I just mind there being so much of him in the first movie. After that one, he stayed out of the way for the most part. I liked Qui Gon, but his character isn't so easy to define. I liked Kit Fisto, but only because he looks cool. Windu played the important role of being the jedi master who gets on your nerves the most. I thought Greivous was a great creation, but he needed a better name, and he was supposed to be a greater threat than he was portrayed as in the movie. To me, Dooku was pure gold, I thought it was brave of George Lucas to kill him in the opening 30 minutes of Episode 3. But your points are well taken. There were characters everywhere, special effects littered the screen, and the plot was so wishy washy that there was no room for proper character development that would perfectly compliment any great story.

I can't quite agree with you on Grievous. He looked cool in the cartoon, but there was something that felt fake to me about him in the movie.
Count Dooku's character was largely saved by brilliant (if a bit much like Saruman) acting, but otherwise, he was not well-delfined. The same went for Qui-Gon, really. Character concept was weak, but the actor is one of the better one can find.
About Samuel L. Jackson, I think redlettermedia is right there, too. Mostly, anyway (not about the diversity quota having already been met, because it Star Wars is still far too much about white men in key roles, when they are human). He can make a really powerful performance if put in the right role (one with intensity), but a Jedi Master was not ideal. I don't think he sucked, though. He made Obi-Wan and Anakin look a bit meek, to me, and that was not all that great. As actors, they just don't seem to carry the same forceful personality.
About the character himself, many fans would say Windu was superfluous, a paper hero, etc. I see where they are coming from, but I don't quite agree. The Jedi order was in its "golden age" (Lucas's words) in the Prequels, and the Jedi were "in their prime". I think the Prequels needed a Jedi Master to embody this power of the Jedi order, so to speak. Many fans will respond to that by pointing to Yoda, but that cannot work like that dramatically when Yoda survives the purge. A Jedi Master of (at least almost) Yoda's stature that could fall at the same time as the order was definitely something that could raise the dramatic stakes of the purge. The guy whose death spelled the doom for the order, at least in a dramatic, story-telling mechanical sense. In theory, that is definitely a character concept that had more legitimate reason to exist in the Prequels than most.
Mace Windu actually did serve this role to an extent, but he fell flat due to limited characterization and screen time. That concept needed to be built up, or there was no reason to include him. As it is, I am not sure where Lucas wanted to go with him. He is, like, really powerful but little used. His most defining attribute that people will remember is the actor who portrayed him, which is not a very good sign.
Now, the circumstances were less than ideal to build drama around him to begin with, due to the fact that the Original Trilogy was already released and that he was (just like almost every Jedi in the Prequels) doomed by canon. His death was never going to be a surprise to someone familiar with the saga, just like no one with the slightest familiarity with our culture and its common knowledge was ever going to be surprised by the ship sinking in Titanic. However, I still think that he should be written in a way that people who watched Star Wars in chronological order would actually get involved in the character, making it similar to Obi-Wan's death in Episode IV.
So no, he was not a truly superfluous character concept, under ideal circumstances. Far from it, he had potential with good writing. He was never going to be a Darth Vader to fans, but he could have been much better. It is just that underdevelopment (and possibly miscast) reduced him to that.

Yeah, people often let their passion for the series get in the way. I try not to throw stones at George Lucas, but I also try not to excuse some of the things he did, that I believe should have and could have been done better. The sheer amount of money that he spent on making the prequels should demand a coherent story. The sheer amount of money he was destined to make from the prequels demands a coherent story even more. But I just think he tried to do too much with these movies. He had too many characters, too many special effects and computer graphics. He relied on lightsabers, flashy things and large battle scenes to carry him through it. Small details, and often enough, large details were pushed to the side. While there are a few fans here, I think most of us can agree that Star Wars is far from perfect.

Agreed, many fans do indeed get emotionally carried away. Logical fallacies are far too numerous to count, as a result. I took it too seriously, too.

Technically, it is a wonder they were able to do it. But you would think the technical side of movie-making would be the real challenge these days. It's not. How often have we seen great special effects and computer generated characters like Optimus Prime, or the Hulk, star in movies that actually make no sense whatsoever? The written part of movie-making seems to be the most difficult these days.

Agreed. The people doing the computer animations still did a great job, though. Of course, you would not get a job on any Hollywood studio without great technical proficiency.

Oh no. Nothing wrong with repetition. Considering the probability that you've discussed these subjects numerous times with people who refuse to take any of it under consideration, repetition is the way to get your point across. No. What I meant was that I have come to agree with your standpoint. This stuff can't be proven unless George Lucas comes out and gives credit to it, and even then, his explanations might not make much sense.

Yes, I have discussed this quite a bit. I am glad you see what I am trying to say.

6 movies is a very ambitious saga. The 30 years of time across which he told the story of that saga is even more ambitious. During that time he became something of a different person with different perspectives, technology advanced, allowing him to do more with his movies, and different ways to do them... I would probably like Star Wars more if the two trilogies weren't so interconnected. It's hard to say, or if the new trilogy had never happened. I don't know. I do know that I continue to revisit Star Wars from time to time, which I guess is a blessing.

Indeed, both his personality and the technology for moviemaking will have changed greatly in this timespan, setting the stage for a different tone.

The talent he surrounds himself with is unbelievable. I wish I had half the talent some of those people have. George Lucas' own imagination and drive is amazing. I think if anything, his biggest flaw is his ability to overreach his limits. No matter how much money someone has, everyone has limits. George Lucas is deserving of praise for so many accomplishments, it's no wonder that his supporters can only be equaled by his detractors. He's done a lot of things, and the more work you publish, the more chances you give people to criticize your shortcomings. George Lucas sacrificed the validity of his plot for something he thought was more important. I'm not entirely sure what that something was, because I wasn't there while he was making those movies. The scene in the video that I posted, where he, Rick MacCallum, Ben Burt and maybe a few others were watching Episode 1 is proof that George Lucas has learned to live with his sacrifices. But that scene also proves that all in attendance realize that the movie had pretty big problems.

Although that is mistakenly quoted as coming from me, I do agree with your response. His imagination is fantastic. His ability to build a coherent plot is, sadly, not on the same level.

[C Of K]

Originally Posted by Darth Angelus

I am currently reading Apocalypse (don't the titles need work, too?), the last novel of the Fate of the Jedi series. It has been ok overall, I think, but nothing I have been immensely excited about.

Oh, yes. Titles definitely could use a little more thought put into them. But that's the problem with Star Wars novels these days. At least 3 titles for every book in a series. "Star Wars: Fate of the Jedi: Apocalypse" Lol. If they made the unique title of any particular book more than one word, it would exceed the limits of "mouthful"

Lucas has admitted he has mad small things similar on purpose, "so that they rhymed" in his own words, as shown in redlettermedia's videos. That is small enough to not take up too much room, so it does not bother me all that much. It is not what I'd call one of the greatest Prequel flaws, even though it is a bit disturbing to the extent in which it is a symptom of the fact that he relies a bit too much Original Trilogy nostalgia.

Yeah. I don't see it as a flaw either. I actually kind of like the idea because he's never been heavy handed with it. The creators of the expanded universe don't seem to pull that technique off quite so gracefully as George Lucas does, however.

I read the Darth Ceadus series, and I thought it was well-written. There wasn't anything really new in it, true, but they did step away from the overused redemption theme.

True, it wasn't about Jacen's redemption. However, we do know the reasons why he fell to the darkside were very similar to the reason why Anakin fell. He saw certain visions that disturbed him so much that, in order to avoid really terrible things from happening, he began doing other terrible things. It is very reminiscent of Anakin's fall. There were many expanded universe stories and novels before the prequels came out, but I can't recall a single one that employed visions as the catalyst for turning a prominent character to the darkside. While I understand that there has to be a reason for characters to turn from "good" to "evil" there also should be more reason for me to read a story than just to get a rehashed retelling of such an important plot line in the story. Had they come up with an original way to turn Jacen into a sith lord, the series may have seemed interesting enough for me to read.

Agreed, although I admit there are limits to what I could invent, too, when it comes to new technology that is not too far-fetched. Still, they could definitely have made more new ship designs instead of using Star Destroyers.

Don't short-change yourself. Remember, this is their job. They get paid to come up with new ideas for Star Wars. It's what they do, day in and day out. I know there are reasons for the shortcuts they take, but after all is said and done, and I've bought their game, the only thing that really matters is their finished product, and how much their dedication and adherence to detail, or lack-thereof, has led me to either enjoy or despise their game.

True, the idea of including a child Anakin was doubtful to say the least, but I was mostly referring to him in Episodes II and III. In Episode I, he at least got the message across that Anakin was a good person to begin with. However, in Episode II, he had already changed personality A LOT off-screen, so we never really see that development.

Oh. Lol. I see what you mean. I also thought Anakin was whiny in those movies, but over time he's grown on me. After the death of my own mother, I've come to sympathize with him a lot. I would go through a lot of trouble to stop something like that from happening to me again, if I could. While I don't think I would bring down an entire social structure in order to do it, I am an emotional enough person to understand why he couldn't bare to lose Padme.

I am not sure of the exact order I imagined it. I know most fans imagine it like you did, though.
However, in a way, it makes sense for Obi-Wan to duel him when he has already done a bit of damage.

Very true. I had never thought of it that way before. Makes perfect sense.

About the character himself, many fans would say Windu was superfluous, a paper hero, etc. I see where they are coming from, but I don't quite agree. The Jedi order was in its "golden age" (Lucas's words) in the Prequels, and the Jedi were "in their prime". I think the Prequels needed a Jedi Master to embody this power of the Jedi order, so to speak. Many fans will respond to that by pointing to Yoda, but that cannot work like that dramatically when Yoda survives the purge. A Jedi Master of (at least almost) Yoda's stature that could fall at the same time as the order was definitely something that could raise the dramatic stakes of the purge. The guy whose death spelled the doom for the order, at least in a dramatic, story-telling mechanical sense. In theory, that is definitely a character concept that had more legitimate reason to exist in the Prequels than most.
Mace Windu actually did serve this role to an extent, but he fell flat due to limited characterization and screen time. That concept needed to be built up, or there was no reason to include him. As it is, I am not sure where Lucas wanted to go with him. He is, like, really powerful but little used. His most defining attribute that people will remember is the actor who portrayed him, which is not a very good sign.
Now, the circumstances were less than ideal to build drama around him to begin with, due to the fact that the Original Trilogy was already released and that he was (just like almost every Jedi in the Prequels) doomed by canon. His death was never going to be a surprise to someone familiar with the saga, just like no one with the slightest familiarity with our culture and its common knowledge was ever going to be surprised by the ship sinking in Titanic. However, I still think that he should be written in a way that people who watched Star Wars in chronological order would actually get involved in the character, making it similar to Obi-Wan's death in Episode IV.
So no, he was not a truly superfluous character concept, under ideal circumstances. Far from it, he had potential with good writing. He was never going to be a Darth Vader to fans, but he could have been much better. It is just that underdevelopment (and possibly miscast) reduced him to that.

As you pointed out, everyone knew that Mace Windu had to die. It's possible that George Lucas decided to devolve his character to a more basic role because of this. It's possible, but not probable. I think other things just ate up all the time in the movie and we were left with a less than satisfying performance from a less than satisfying character. But there is no doubt that his role was devolved. As you pointed out, he should have been a symbol of the fall of the jedi order. And he was, but a very weak symbol, because most people weren't made to care about his character. When most people think of Mace Windu, they think of Sammuel L. Jackson, and then they think about how cold he was to Anakin all the time. That pretty much sums up his entire character. He's pretty much relegated to being the character that Anakin can point to, and say, "Look. You jedi aren't all you're cracked up to be. Here, is you leader, breaking the jedi code. Here is you leader, he'll put me on the council, but won't make me a master. It's never been done before." Windu became the character that, more than any other jedi, stood in Anakin's way, and helped his fall to the darkside progress.

Although that is mistakenly quoted as coming from me, I do agree with your response. His imagination is fantastic. His ability to build a coherent plot is, sadly, not on the same level.

Woops my post was so long I was bound to have an oversight or two. Lol. Sorry about that.

[Darth Angelus]

Originally Posted by C Of K

True, it wasn't about Jacen's redemption. However, we do know the reasons why he fell to the darkside were very similar to the reason why Anakin fell. He saw certain visions that disturbed him so much that, in order to avoid really terrible things from happening, he began doing other terrible things. It is very reminiscent of Anakin's fall. There were many expanded universe stories and novels before the prequels came out, but I can't recall a single one that employed visions as the catalyst for turning a prominent character to the darkside. While I understand that there has to be a reason for characters to turn from "good" to "evil" there also should be more reason for me to read a story than just to get a rehashed retelling of such an important plot line in the story. Had they come up with an original way to turn Jacen into a sith lord, the series may have seemed interesting enough for me to read.

Yeah, it was a bit too similar. It seems to be a bit of a tired old cliche, really, about becoming evil by wanting to do good ("the end justifies the means"), in these cases by preventing bad things from happening. We have heard that story told a bit too many times by now.

Don't short-change yourself. Remember, this is their job. They get paid to come up with new ideas for Star Wars. It's what they do, day in and day out. I know there are reasons for the shortcuts they take, but after all is said and done, and I've bought their game, the only thing that really matters is their finished product, and how much their dedication and adherence to detail, or lack-thereof, has led me to either enjoy or despise their game.

You are right. I was just trying to be understanding, and I realize it is not always that easy to find ideas blend in well with the continuity that already exists. But true enough, if it is a full time job that they get paid to do (indirectly by us, the consumers), we have the right to ask them to put adequate effort into their work.

Oh. Lol. I see what you mean. I also thought Anakin was whiny in those movies, but over time he's grown on me. After the death of my own mother, I've come to sympathize with him a lot. I would go through a lot of trouble to stop something like that from happening to me again, if I could. While I don't think I would bring down an entire social structure in order to do it, I am an emotional enough person to understand why he couldn't bare to lose Padme.

Sorry about your mother. Same thing happened to my father, but that was between Episodes I and II.
I think the Jedi order may have been flawed in how they handled Anakin's mother. Why not just go and buy her out after Episode I, if they feared grave danger in Anakin's training, letting Anakin meet her and know she was all right once in a while. Yes, I know about the Jedi position on personal attachments, but it was already way too late for him to have no attachment to her. It is fairly obvious that insensitively severing his connection to him, and even more so if something were to happen to her, would do more to push him towards the dark side than letting him maintain a casual relationship to still his worst fears. The order just comes off as very rigid, not taking into account that Anakin is a very special case.
Even so, Anakin came off as whining and annoying even before Shmi died.

As you pointed out, everyone knew that Mace Windu had to die. It's possible that George Lucas decided to devolve his character to a more basic role because of this. It's possible, but not probable.

I didn't mean that he'd made that decision consciously, but I would not deem it all that unlikely that knowing certain characters had to die affected his thought process as he wrote the script.
Remember, he has relied on Original Trilogy nostalgia more than a little, putting most of his time and focus (that wasn't wasted on completely silly things) on characters we already knew (and still failing to show the good friendship between Obi-Wan and Anakin that the former talked about in Episode IV very well, as redlettermedia pointed out).

I think other things just ate up all the time in the movie and we were left with a less than satisfying performance from a less than satisfying character. But there is no doubt that his role was devolved. As you pointed out, he should have been a symbol of the fall of the jedi order. And he was, but a very weak symbol, because most people weren't made to care about his character. When most people think of Mace Windu, they think of Sammuel L. Jackson, and then they think about how cold he was to Anakin all the time. That pretty much sums up his entire character. He's pretty much relegated to being the character that Anakin can point to, and say, "Look. You jedi aren't all you're cracked up to be. Here, is you leader, breaking the jedi code. Here is you leader, he'll put me on the council, but won't make me a master. It's never been done before." Windu became the character that, more than any other jedi, stood in Anakin's way, and helped his fall to the darkside progress.

I didn't quite think of him as too hard on Anakin. I always just thought he expressed the majority opinion of the council. He wielded authority and was given the unthankful job of telling Anakin what Anakin didn't want to hear, but I don't think of it as just his personal opinion (it was technically "we do not grant you the rank of master", as I'd recall it). The way it was presented, though, I am not surprised many will see him like that.
He was also right about some things. He showed scepticism of putting Anakin with Palpatine. He did not trust Anakin, but he had pretty good reason not to. It is not like what he sensed as danger with Anakin was very far off.
And remember, Anakin himself was very frustrated even with Obi-Wan.

Still, with the rest of it, I will agree. I do understand the "too hard on Anakin" perspective, but in that case I think it goes for the entire order and its regulations.


I do not think Lucas quite knew where he wanted to go with the character, though. Many fans have thought he was just written just for Samuel L. Jackson, and yes, it might seem like it, but truth is he goes back to the earliest Star Wars drafts, and was cut out of the Original Trilogy. I am more inclined to believe he was an important, perhaps even very important role, that got just got devolved.

About the character's power in-universe, I always thought he was in top power tier of the Jedi. The authority he seemed to be wielding in the council in Episode I made me think he was in charge already back then (and indeed I read that he handed over the grandmastership of the order to Yoda in the Clone Wars, at least according to the Expanded Universe). But anyway, leadership itself does not prove physical power, so after Episode I, you could not quite be sure.
Then came Episode II, and he seemed to defeat Jango so easily, never even slowing stride as he deflected the bolts. That was bounty hunter who had proven deadly to other Jedi, and basically been tied with Obi-Wan. Since then, I was fairly sure he was quite a bit above Obi-Wan's level.
Yes, some would argue that he had a better opportunity, with Jango's jetpack broken and one blaster gone, but that would apply only if it were real fights. As it was, we were speculating about the intention of an author, whose work is not the most advanced logically, and so it always smelled like grasping at straws to diminish Windu's power. I spoke to a friend over phone yesterday, and he said that the reasoning that got me to the conclusion that Windu was stronger than Kenobi after Episode II was a twelve year old's logic, but he still very much agreed that that very twelve year old's logic works in Star Wars prequels.
No, it did not come as a surprise to me that by Episode III that Lucas and Gillard quotes indicated Windu was above Obi-Wan in power. That had always been how had likely been, ever since Episode II. His combat statistics in card and miniature games after Episode II were notably above Obi-Wan's, too, and while that is G-canon or even C-canon, it does indicate that (probably grown-up) people responsible for producing a product and given permission to do so had believed the same.

For reasons I have already mentioned, we can't use hard logic on Star Wars. The whole saga would just collapse in an instant.
You could just bring up the Geonosians wanting to build a Death Star. Well, if they had that kind of production capacity, it would be way cheaper to just build a droid army that is a thousand times the strength of the slightly over one million clone army, guaranteeing them victory.
Yes, you read me right. The cost of a Death Star would be ENORMOUS by comparison to the diminitive Clone Army. To quote the Wikipedia article I linked to...
"In February 2012, students from Lehigh University of Pennsylvania published a blog post that priced the Death Star based on the cost of steel to produce it. The students believed that in today's economy, it would cost $852,000,000,000,000,000 assuming that the diameter of the Death Star was 140 kilometres but that it would take 833,315 years to produce enough steel to begin work."
While I can't say I have done the math myself, I can say they are not far off in order of magnitude. The main reason for that is the volume of a sphere, which is 4/3 * pi * r^3 ('*' means "times" and '^' means "to the power of"). We can just ignore the 4/3 and pi parts, as they are constants, and focus on the cubed radius part (r^3). That means that the growth of a sphere in volume in proportional to the growth of a sphere in radius (and diameter). As a sidenote, the same goes for any three-dimensional shape, really. If proportions are maintained, in order to maintain the shape, it would grow in all three dimensions by the same proportion. If radius doubles, volume increases eight times. If radius increases a thousand times, volume increases a billion (1000^3) times.
To put it in normal English, the volume skyrockets as you increase the radius. Therefore, it would take nearly unfathomable amounts of metal to build a station that is 140 km in diameter (70 km in radius).
Yes, we do not know how expensive metal is in Star Wars, nor building droids, growing and training clones, etc. We do not know how compact the Death Star is (if there is a lot of empty volume instead of it being solid). Those factors are not relevant when we talk about a difference of several orders of magnitude, and would merely determine whether the (first, and smaller) Death Star costed tens or hundreds of thousands of clone armies.
And I don't even have to use university math to figure that this cost proportion is way off.
Then again, ironically, the cost of a Death Star is probably way more accurate than the cost of the clone army for an economy of the size of that galaxy.

So here again, we come back to my earlier point about things not having to follow logic as we know it. For the costs of the Death Star and the clone army to fall anywhere close to each other in order of magnitude (as implied) would require the volume of a three dimensional shape would grow at a rate no higher than the square of the radius (perhaps even less), but that is clearly, mathematically not the case.

That is my point of Star Wars logic. I have been accused of not understanding logic when it came to arguing story issues, more than once. Yeah, I know, heated discussions. My reply to that is that I have stopped caring what that type of overzealous fans think of me, because if that were the case I could not handle university studies in the subjects I have done. The point is that if you throw a higher level of real logic on Star Wars than it was written for, it will come down collapsing on you. Then again, it is almost the same as the point I made before.
I use the level of logic the story seems to have been written for, and on that level (fallacious in real life but valid in the scope of the saga), Mace Windu's handling of Jango more or less proved him to be a better fighter than Obi-Wan Kenobi. In a purely speculative situation, that was as valid as any way to deduce the author's intention.

However, there is still a narrative issue about us being told by the author (in an offscreen comment) that a character is (at least almost) on Yoda's level, after him having fighted only droids and a bounty hunter before. Obi-Wan Kenobi is a well-established character that we have been shown dueling Sith (even if unsuccessfully a lot of the time), and are told this guy coming almost out of nowhere, having been given almost no development, is stronger than him. No wonder some will reject that, and no wonder Windu's power will be a subject of (sometimes intense) argument between people who look at things from different angles. These arguments would be fine if they came from brilliant writing, but I fear the opposite is the case here.
Now, I might seem obsessed with character power ratings. Some would say the saga has deeper meaning. I find it hard to see how character power would be irrelevant to this very saga, though, and any kind of depth the Prequels might have wanted to portray gets lost in the way they are told.

As a side note, the idea seemingly coming from some fans that power is proportional to screen time always irked me. That is fallacious, even in fiction. It seems like people are equivocating on "strength of character" there. These two things are almost completely unrelated.
A character can have immense strength in terms of in-story combat power, but still be very weak in terms of character development (Tulkas in Tolkien's myth is a perfect example of this, as I could easily describe all there is to know about him in a few sentences, although I am not going to compare Mace Windu to him in any other way). On the other hand, a cripple might have great character development. In-story power does not make the character concept great, nor does a great character concept neccessarily mean the character has power in-story.
So when I said Windu was stronger than Kenobi (by maybe one tier), I referred only to in-story combat power only. As a narrative character concept, he is clearly much weaker. Heck, he is much weaker than Han Solo as a character concept, too, but I would still say he would win very easily.
The point is, many people link their favourite characters (which is not always due to strong character concept, either, as many like for example Boba Fett because he looks cool, but he is not really very complex, either) too strongly to combat power. More than once have I had to explain (usually to no avail) that they are separate.

But even so, with me thinking many fans are reasoning incorrectly (often even more some than the Prequel's own logical flaws, to be honest), I still think that Windu, to the extent he was meant as a symbol of the Jedi days of power followed by their downfall, needed a lot more attention if he was going to be there at all.
So briefly, even though the character concept was very weak, the same could not be said of the character's power in-story, and no, that is not a contradiction at all.

Woops my post was so long I was bound to have an oversight or two. Lol. Sorry about that.

No worries. And sorry about my long wall of text.

[C Of K]

Originally Posted by Darth Angelus

Sorry about your mother. Same thing happened to my father, but that was between Episodes I and II.
I think the Jedi order may have been flawed in how they handled Anakin's mother. Why not just go and buy her out after Episode I, if they feared grave danger in Anakin's training, letting Anakin meet her and know she was all right once in a while. Yes, I know about the Jedi position on personal attachments, but it was already way too late for him to have no attachment to her. It is fairly obvious that insensitively severing his connection to him, and even more so if something were to happen to her, would do more to push him towards the dark side than letting him maintain a casual relationship to still his worst fears. The order just comes off as very rigid, not taking into account that Anakin is a very special case.
Even so, Anakin came off as whining and annoying even before Shmi died.

Thanks. It sucks to go through it, but hopefully the worst is over for us both :\ Anakin was indeed a special case, and in a lot of ways, the jedi order had no idea what they were doing with him. But we have to remember that between episode 1 and 2 Anakin was having bad dreams about his mother being in pain. I know people who are deeply affected by their dreams. My father had a dream about losing my mother several years before it happened. During that time, they were having a house built. In his dream, the house was finished, and the walls were green. The fact that my mother wasn't in the dream disturbed him for some reason I can't really explain. It was just a bad feeling he had about her absence in general. So when my mother told him that she wanted green walls, he flatly refused. They argued a bit, but he never admitted to anyone why he didn't want green walls until after she was gone. To her, I'm sure he seemed very unreasonable. He probably wasn't whining, but he was deeply affected enough to make him less than appealing to be around.

I didn't quite think of him as too hard on Anakin. I always just thought he expressed the majority opinion of the council. He wielded authority and was given the unthankful job of telling Anakin what Anakin didn't want to hear, but I don't think of it as just his personal opinion (it was technically "we do not grant you the rank of master", as I'd recall it). The way it was presented, though, I am not surprised many will see him like that.
He was also right about some things. He showed scepticism of putting Anakin with Palpatine. He did not trust Anakin, but he had pretty good reason not to. It is not like what he sensed as danger with Anakin was very far off.
And remember, Anakin himself was very frustrated even with Obi-Wan.

Still, with the rest of it, I will agree. I do understand the "too hard on Anakin" perspective, but in that case I think it goes for the entire order and its regulations.

While I don't think the jedi were necessarily too hard on Anakin, I think that the way things played out, I can understand why Anakin felt the way he did, and why Windu in particular could be the focus of Anakin's discontent with the jedi council. Palpatine and the jedi council put a lot of pressure on Anakin to get him to spy on the other side. The difference is that Palpatine was offering Anakin everything that the jedi code denied him. For Anakin to stand there and watch Windu break the jedi code by executing a beaten Palpatine must have been nearly impossible. Had it been Yoda there instead of Windu, things possibly could have turned out different. Yoda, being more attuned not only to the emotions of his pupils, but of everyone, and a bit less brash, perhaps wouldn't have tried to execute Palpatine. It's impossible for me to say, but Windu is definitely a conduit through which I am better able to see Anakin's point of view.

I do not think Lucas quite knew where he wanted to go with the character, though. Many fans have thought he was just written just for Samuel L. Jackson, and yes, it might seem like it, but truth is he goes back to the earliest Star Wars drafts, and was cut out of the Original Trilogy. I am more inclined to believe he was an important, perhaps even very important role, that got just got devolved.

Yeah, he has the makings of a very important and even relate-able character. But as it is, it's just difficult to grasp the weight of his life or death, which is very unfortunate. I've heard it said that George Lucas having the money and power to make all the important decisions himself was the reason people think the prequels weren't as good as the originals. Or maybe it was the fact that he relied so heavily on computer graphics. While those sentiments are valid, I think characters like Windu are a perfect example of why there has to be more to that line of reasoning. I think back in the 1970s, George Lucas struggled to create something that could survive critical examination. The original trilogy isn't perfect, but at least the characterization is pretty solid. I just think there's no need for a wealthy man to struggle with this type of thing the way a poor man does. Not that George Lucas didn't have any money while he was writing and making Star Wars, but at that time he didn't have an international phenomenon behind which there was an easy profit to make. Now, if he makes a Star Wars movie, it will make a profit, almost no matter how incoherent it is.

About the character's power in-universe, I always thought he was in top power tier of the Jedi. The authority he seemed to be wielding in the council in Episode I made me think he was in charge already back then (and indeed I read that he handed over the grandmastership of the order to Yoda in the Clone Wars, at least according to the Expanded Universe). But anyway, leadership itself does not prove physical power, so after Episode I, you could not quite be sure.
Then came Episode II, and he seemed to defeat Jango so easily, never even slowing stride as he deflected the bolts. That was bounty hunter who had proven deadly to other Jedi, and basically been tied with Obi-Wan. Since then, I was fairly sure he was quite a bit above Obi-Wan's level.
Yes, some would argue that he had a better opportunity, with Jango's jetpack broken and one blaster gone, but that would apply only if it were real fights. As it was, we were speculating about the intention of an author, whose work is not the most advanced logically, and so it always smelled like grasping at straws to diminish Windu's power. I spoke to a friend over phone yesterday, and he said that the reasoning that got me to the conclusion that Windu was stronger than Kenobi after Episode II was a twelve year old's logic, but he still very much agreed that that very twelve year old's logic works in Star Wars prequels.
No, it did not come as a surprise to me that by Episode III that Lucas and Gillard quotes indicated Windu was above Obi-Wan in power. That had always been how had likely been, ever since Episode II. His combat statistics in card and miniature games after Episode II were notably above Obi-Wan's, too, and while that is G-canon or even C-canon, it does indicate that (probably grown-up) people responsible for producing a product and given permission to do so had believed the same.

For reasons I have already mentioned, we can't use hard logic on Star Wars. The whole saga would just collapse in an instant.
You could just bring up the Geonosians wanting to build a Death Star. Well, if they had that kind of production capacity, it would be way cheaper to just build a droid army that is a thousand times the strength of the slightly over one million clone army, guaranteeing them victory.
Yes, you read me right. The cost of a Death Star would be ENORMOUS by comparison to the diminitive Clone Army. To quote the Wikipedia article I linked to...
"In February 2012, students from Lehigh University of Pennsylvania published a blog post that priced the Death Star based on the cost of steel to produce it. The students believed that in today's economy, it would cost $852,000,000,000,000,000 assuming that the diameter of the Death Star was 140 kilometres but that it would take 833,315 years to produce enough steel to begin work."
While I can't say I have done the math myself, I can say they are not far off in order of magnitude. The main reason for that is the volume of a sphere, which is 4/3 * pi * r^3 ('*' means "times" and '^' means "to the power of"). We can just ignore the 4/3 and pi parts, as they are constants, and focus on the cubed radius part (r^3). That means that the growth of a sphere in volume in proportional to the growth of a sphere in radius (and diameter). As a sidenote, the same goes for any three-dimensional shape, really. If proportions are maintained, in order to maintain the shape, it would grow in all three dimensions by the same proportion. If radius doubles, volume increases eight times. If radius increases a thousand times, volume increases a billion (1000^3) times.
To put it in normal English, the volume skyrockets as you increase the radius. Therefore, it would take nearly unfathomable amounts of metal to build a station that is 140 km in diameter (70 km in radius).
Yes, we do not know how expensive metal is in Star Wars, nor building droids, growing and training clones, etc. We do not know how compact the Death Star is (if there is a lot of empty volume instead of it being solid). Those factors are not relevant when we talk about a difference of several orders of magnitude, and would merely determine whether the (first, and smaller) Death Star costed tens or hundreds of thousands of clone armies.
And I don't even have to use university math to figure that this cost proportion is way off.
Then again, ironically, the cost of a Death Star is probably way more accurate than the cost of the clone army for an economy of the size of that galaxy.

So here again, we come back to my earlier point about things not having to follow logic as we know it. For the costs of the Death Star and the clone army to fall anywhere close to each other in order of magnitude (as implied) would require the volume of a three dimensional shape would grow at a rate no higher than the square of the radius (perhaps even less), but that is clearly, mathematically not the case.

That is my point of Star Wars logic. I have been accused of not understanding logic when it came to arguing story issues, more than once. Yeah, I know, heated discussions. My reply to that is that I have stopped caring what that type of overzealous fans think of me, because if that were the case I could not handle university studies in the subjects I have done. The point is that if you throw a higher level of real logic on Star Wars than it was written for, it will come down collapsing on you. Then again, it is almost the same as the point I made before.
I use the level of logic the story seems to have been written for, and on that level (fallacious in real life but valid in the scope of the saga), Mace Windu's handling of Jango more or less proved him to be a better fighter than Obi-Wan Kenobi. In a purely speculative situation, that was as valid as any way to deduce the author's intention.

Well, anyone who accuses you of being ignorant where logic is concerned is fooling themselves. I must confess, I had no idea how big the clone army was. As you said, any society that can raise enough capital and material to build the Death Star should obviously be able to flatten a one million man army by simply producing doids of twice or thrice the quantity of their opposition. If twice or thrice doesn't work, then it would be no problem for them to widen the gap until the clones are all dead. Death Star = overkill in almost every way.

I also had no idea that so many people blieve Obi Wan is as powerful or more powerful than Windu. It's interesting. I don't know what would give them that idea. Windu and Yoda are of a level with each other. While power doesn't have everything to do with who sits on the jedi council, it does have something to do with it. As is shown so very often in the saga, a person's power determines how well that person is able to read the will of the force, which is what the jedi council is all about. It's the reason why Obi Wan could state with so much assurance that Anakin would be elected to the council eventually. Anakin's ability to interpret the force would eventually exceed anyone's. Eventually, Anakin would have become the head of the jedi council had things not turned out the way they did, no doubt in my mind. When Windu and Yoda are both gone, who better for the jedi to turn to but the one who was supposed to make everything right again?

As a side note, the idea seemingly coming from some fans that power is proportional to screen time always irked me. That is fallacious, even in fiction. It seems like people are equivocating on "strength of character" there. These two things are almost completely unrelated.
A character can have immense strength in terms of in-story combat power, but still be very weak in terms of character development (Tulkas in Tolkien's myth is a perfect example of this, as I could easily describe all there is to know about him in a few sentences, although I am not going to compare Mace Windu to him in any other way). On the other hand, a cripple might have great character development. In-story power does not make the character concept great, nor does a great character concept neccessarily mean the character has power in-story.
So when I said Windu was stronger than Kenobi (by maybe one tier), I referred only to in-story combat power only. As a narrative character concept, he is clearly much weaker. Heck, he is much weaker than Han Solo as a character concept, too, but I would still say he would win very easily.

The point is, many people link their favourite characters (which is not always due to strong character concept, either, as many like for example Boba Fett because he looks cool, but he is not really very complex, either) too strongly to combat power. More than once have I had to explain (usually to no avail) that they are separate.

You've just been dealing with people who are incapable of making an argument on an adult level. There are plenty of children who are capable of discussing matters of fiction on an adult level, and unfortunately, there are plenty of adults who are incapable of discussing fiction on an adult level. Anyone who starts concocting imaginary rules that have no grounding in the fictional piece that is being discussed is somewhat immature. Anyone who equates screen time to a character's actual physical/spiritual etc. abilities is drawing up rules for every work of fiction that there has ever been, and doesn't have the faintest clue of what they are talking about.

But even so, with me thinking many fans are reasoning incorrectly (often even more some than the Prequel's own logical flaws, to be honest), I still think that Windu, to the extent he was meant as a symbol of the Jedi days of power followed by their downfall, needed a lot more attention if he was going to be there at all.
So briefly, even though the character concept was very weak, the same could not be said of the character's power in-story, and no, that is not a contradiction at all.

Agreed. The idea of Mace was worthy of Star Wars. The execution of his character was just lacking.

[Huttman]

That video earlier that was pointing out what was 'wrong' with Star Wars was going on about how at the end of each movie the events were getting bigger, from one conflict at the end of ANH, two conflicts at the end of Empire, etc. Well, the story just kept getting bigger with so much more going on. That continued with the prequels, the scope of the story went from a small band of rebels to a galactic republic made up of so many different sub-characters and back stories, I think Mr. Lucas' epic became too epic to keep in that formula of a trilogy of 2 hour movies. The result is characters like Mace Windu or Qui-Gon Jinn not having much screen time to get flushed out. But, did Alec Guinness have much more screen time before his characters death? Mace Windu seemed sacrificed to be just the axiom for Anakin to hate the Jedi, but the saga is not about Mace, it's about the Skywalkers. I think Mace quite nicely showed the arrogance of the Jedi order even at the council level. Well, that's my two credits worth, anyway. Happy Birthday, Star Wars!

[Darth Angelus]

Originally Posted by C Of K

Thanks. It sucks to go through it, but hopefully the worst is over for us both :\ Anakin was indeed a special case, and in a lot of ways, the jedi order had no idea what they were doing with him. But we have to remember that between episode 1 and 2 Anakin was having bad dreams about his mother being in pain. I know people who are deeply affected by their dreams. My father had a dream about losing my mother several years before it happened. During that time, they were having a house built. In his dream, the house was finished, and the walls were green. The fact that my mother wasn't in the dream disturbed him for some reason I can't really explain. It was just a bad feeling he had about her absence in general. So when my mother told him that she wanted green walls, he flatly refused. They argued a bit, but he never admitted to anyone why he didn't want green walls until after she was gone. To her, I'm sure he seemed very unreasonable. He probably wasn't whining, but he was deeply affected enough to make him less than appealing to be around.

I see your point. Maybe I will look at Anakin slightly differently the next time, but my point remains that his change was not gradual enough. A far too great part of his personality change still occurs offscreen, between Episodes I and II. The way I see it, it would have been better if he had been closer to how he was in Episode I at the opening of Episode II, which is more pleasant and less full of himself, and we gradually see him change for the worse as the movie progresses. I think that is how most screenwriters would have approached it, too. We are forced to accept that too much has happened to his personality that we haven't seen (and this is about the main character of the saga, not Mace Windu) and we don't see enough of Obi-Wan and Anakin's friendship.

While I don't think the jedi were necessarily too hard on Anakin, I think that the way things played out, I can understand why Anakin felt the way he did, and why Windu in particular could be the focus of Anakin's discontent with the jedi council. Palpatine and the jedi council put a lot of pressure on Anakin to get him to spy on the other side. The difference is that Palpatine was offering Anakin everything that the jedi code denied him. For Anakin to stand there and watch Windu break the jedi code by executing a beaten Palpatine must have been nearly impossible. Had it been Yoda there instead of Windu, things possibly could have turned out different. Yoda, being more attuned not only to the emotions of his pupils, but of everyone, and a bit less brash, perhaps wouldn't have tried to execute Palpatine. It's impossible for me to say, but Windu is definitely a conduit through which I am better able to see Anakin's point of view.

Putting Anakin to spy on Palpatine was a very poor move. There is no doubt about that. Not only did undermine Anakin's faith in their order, but it allowed Palpatine to influence him further. Now, I know that they did not know what we know as an audience, but if they had the slightest sense that Anakin could not handle it, as Mace Windu evidently did, since he said so onscreeen, the plan should have been abolished in an instant. He actually sensed the dark side surrounding the chancellor. Then again, he may have been overruled by the council. But someone high up in the order made a poor decision, even though we are never told who was for and who was against Anakin spying on Palpatine on an individual level.

As for what would have happened if it had been Yoda standing over Palpatine, it is hard to say what he would have done, although he did indeed come off as a little less brash. Then again, Windu coming off as brash may very well have been only poor screenwriting (or the fact that we do not picture Samuel L. Jackson in restrained, thoughtful roles) rather than an intentional character trait. He is not developed enough for us to even know whether he was supposed to be brash, but he can seem a bit like it onscreen, so let's go with it.
I am not sure whether he actually broke the code or whether that was just Anakin's rigid interpretation of the code. As far as I am concerned, it is entirely possible that the Jedi order had very special regulations for emergencies like a Sith lord ruling the Republic, and I am not at all as convinced as some fans are that the Jedi code required of them to follow the law of the Republic to the letter in a situation like that, or if they even had to serve the Republic at all. As for executing an unarmed man, it is not quite how it was when someone has Force powers that can kill and Windu has just barely kept these Force powers at bay. Unlike some fans, I actually consider unarmed to be a state of inability to perform any kind of lethal attack, rather than just being out of a physical, visible weapon.
Still, as seen from Anakin's perspective, I guess you are right. It must have been nearly impossible for Anakin to just stand by and watch him just execute Palpatine.

Yeah, he has the makings of a very important and even relate-able character. But as it is, it's just difficult to grasp the weight of his life or death, which is very unfortunate. I've heard it said that George Lucas having the money and power to make all the important decisions himself was the reason people think the prequels weren't as good as the originals. Or maybe it was the fact that he relied so heavily on computer graphics. While those sentiments are valid, I think characters like Windu are a perfect example of why there has to be more to that line of reasoning. I think back in the 1970s, George Lucas struggled to create something that could survive critical examination. The original trilogy isn't perfect, but at least the characterization is pretty solid. I just think there's no need for a wealthy man to struggle with this type of thing the way a poor man does. Not that George Lucas didn't have any money while he was writing and making Star Wars, but at that time he didn't have an international phenomenon behind which there was an easy profit to make. Now, if he makes a Star Wars movie, it will make a profit, almost no matter how incoherent it is.

I think there is a lot of merit to the idea that he actually struggled to create a great story, but I think there is more to it than that. I think the prequels are lacking in an internal critique process. While he may have held himself in check a bit more, I think others also held him in check a bit more, as well. I understand he wanted Luke to be a 65-year old general with a robot head, but got overruled. Similar stories go for Han and C-3PO. And while being held in check may have annoyed him back then, I think it may also have been the best for the movies.
The point is, most of us benefit from a little critique and meddling in our creative processes. Not so much that it impedes with our own creativity, but enough that others can tell us when our ideas aren't working. When it comes to ones own ideas, it is easy for us to just fall in love with them and just not see them objectively, as how they would work. There is an expression in writting called "kill your darlings", which basically means you should cut out what does not work very well within the story even when you love an idea. It is hard to do for many writers, I know that.
So, basically, unless you are a genius like Stanley Kubrick, who seems to always understand what works best for the mood at any particular moment in a movie because of extraordinary storytelling talent (and most moviemakers are not on that level, from what I have seen), you will benefit from an internal review process, where others can assist with screenwriting when needed. Now, I am not sure how Stanley Kubrick worked with others, either. It is possible that his screenwriting was a collaborative process, too, but I am fairly confident he would do better as a solo-screenwriter than George Lucas.

Well, anyone who accuses you of being ignorant where logic is concerned is fooling themselves. I must confess, I had no idea how big the clone army was. As you said, any society that can raise enough capital and material to build the Death Star should obviously be able to flatten a one million man army by simply producing doids of twice or thrice the quantity of their opposition. If twice or thrice doesn't work, then it would be no problem for them to widen the gap until the clones are all dead. Death Star = overkill in almost every way.

I googled about the clone army size, and found this. So, this article suggests 3 million, although it is apparently under debate. As I recall from watching Episode II, the prime minister of Kamino gave Obi-Wan the figure of 200 000 ready with a million more on the way, so 1.2 million. It was long since I watched Episode II, so my memory is a little vague, but 1.2 million or 3 million makes no difference to my point in the last post. It is less than the cost of the Death Star by several orders of magnitude and it is nothing in the perspective of an army making up one side in a large-scale galactic war (similar in proportion to United Kingdom possessing a two-digit figure of soldiers in World War II).
Any army of a size that could be raised on a single planet (with the possible exception of Coruscant, which seems immensely heavily populated compared to other planets) would be insignificant on a galactic scale. Kamino could in no way create an army of adequate size for the Republic.
Even the power of the Jedi order seems to have no foundation in their numbers. Now, Windu tells Palpatine in Episode II that there is not enough of them to protect the Republic and that they are keepers of the peace, not soldiers, so ok, maybe Lucas has acknowledged this in a way. They are not even as much of a physical power factor in the galaxy as the ridiculously dimunitive clone army. The question is how they became as important as they are, being so ridiculously spread thin.

I also had no idea that so many people blieve Obi Wan is as powerful or more powerful than Windu. It's interesting. I don't know what would give them that idea. Windu and Yoda are of a level with each other. While power doesn't have everything to do with who sits on the jedi council, it does have something to do with it. As is shown so very often in the saga, a person's power determines how well that person is able to read the will of the force, which is what the jedi council is all about. It's the reason why Obi Wan could state with so much assurance that Anakin would be elected to the council eventually. Anakin's ability to interpret the force would eventually exceed anyone's. Eventually, Anakin would have become the head of the jedi council had things not turned out the way they did, no doubt in my mind. When Windu and Yoda are both gone, who better for the jedi to turn to but the one who was supposed to make everything right again?

Being on the council of and by itself is no real indication of combat power, I suppose, but being on par with Yoda and leader would place someone in the upper tier of power in general, and easily defeating a bounty hunter who was deadly to other Jedi says quite a bit.
And yes, under better circumstances, Anakin could certainly have gone all the way to the top of the order, becoming leader of the council and master of the order, at least once he obtained sufficient maturity.

You've just been dealing with people who are incapable of making an argument on an adult level. There are plenty of children who are capable of discussing matters of fiction on an adult level, and unfortunately, there are plenty of adults who are incapable of discussing fiction on an adult level. Anyone who starts concocting imaginary rules that have no grounding in the fictional piece that is being discussed is somewhat immature. Anyone who equates screen time to a character's actual physical/spiritual etc. abilities is drawing up rules for every work of fiction that there has ever been, and doesn't have the faintest clue of what they are talking about.

Indeed, there are plenty of those to go around. I eventually got tired of arguing with those over at theforce.net, and lost my temper sometimes with the most annoying kinds of fans, who used the strangest leaps of logic and reason and calling their resulting conclusions fact, which got me banned, mostly by one particular moderator who had this totally relativisting idea that even the most childish, ill-founded and fallacious argument was just as valid as everything else. And I assure you that was a stupid and partial moderator, who punished one side (the "kick was legitmate" side) for saying the answer to the question in this topic was clear-cut and proven, when the other side (the "Sidious threw his saber thrown intentionally") had been just as sure of themselves before without getting even a warning. Regardless of your personal opinion, that is poor moderation at its worst. In retrospect, neither side had a strong reason to be sure of themselves, but one side should not be punished for doing what the other has done without warning on a forum.
Still, it was partly my own fault for letting it get to me the way I did. Today, I don't think I would care all that much if some fans wanted to kid themselves and others about a fictional work. I think a partial and clueless moderator like that could still get to me, though. Then again, even that crap can probably be expected of someone who chooses a picture of a rhino pooping flowers as her profile image. The only question remaining is how that person became a moderator.

Well, enough complaining. It is old stuff.

[Darth Angelus]

Originally Posted by Huttman

That video earlier that was pointing out what was 'wrong' with Star Wars was going on about how at the end of each movie the events were getting bigger, from one conflict at the end of ANH, two conflicts at the end of Empire, etc. Well, the story just kept getting bigger with so much more going on. That continued with the prequels, the scope of the story went from a small band of rebels to a galactic republic made up of so many different sub-characters and back stories, I think Mr. Lucas' epic became too epic to keep in that formula of a trilogy of 2 hour movies. The result is characters like Mace Windu or Qui-Gon Jinn not having much screen time to get flushed out. But, did Alec Guinness have much more screen time before his characters death? Mace Windu seemed sacrificed to be just the axiom for Anakin to hate the Jedi, but the saga is not about Mace, it's about the Skywalkers. I think Mace quite nicely showed the arrogance of the Jedi order even at the council level. Well, that's my two credits worth, anyway. Happy Birthday, Star Wars!

Yes, time constraints did create problems for new characters, but then again characters can be built in relatively little time with good writing, whereas it can fail with a lot of time and poor writing. Just look at Amidala. Heck, I think Obi-Wan and Anakin were bad characters in the prequels, despite getting screentime, and I honestly think they would be completely shallow, too, if it weren't for us already knowing them from the original trilogy.

About the saga being about the Skywalkers, not Mace, that is true in a way but still not quite true. It is really just a figure of speech to say an epic saga is about its main characters. It is about anyone and everyone shown onscreen, just mostly about the main characters.
You can't place the main characters in an empty world and expect drama. Not in this genre, anyway. The drama ultimately comes from a power struggle between various factions in the story, and the main characters serve as the eyes through which we as audience primarily see this struggle. Sometimes it is more than that, with the main characters actually taking action, and that is indeed the case with the Skywalkers in Star Wars, but sometimes the protagonist is just some unremarkable average Joe who just seems to witness events so that we can do the same (I only watched The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy once, but if I recall correctly, the main character is just some completely average guy from Earth).

Knowing the factions involved in the power struggle is very important, as is why they do what they do and how their leaders think. This was skipped over concerning the Trade Federation, which is bad enough, but portraying key Jedi without much of any kind of personality is even worse.
Remember how Obi-Wan told Luke about the Jedi for the first time in Episode IV. They described to us as guardians of peace in the Old Republic, and their extinction ended "a more civilized age" and was linked with the rise of the Empire.
While this was to some extent covered, I would have to say that the death of the leader of the Jedi (the one of them who could and would die, which was not Yoda) should definitely have had more weight in the saga. In a dramatic sense, the very Jedi order dies with Mace Windu, and sure enough, in the next few minutes after his death, after Sidious's initiation of Anakin to the Sith order, the purge begins.
So in essense, Mace Windu's death is more than the death of a secondary character. It is the death of an ancient order and the "more civilized age" that Obi-Wan talked about.
Yes, Anakin's turn was a major blow, too, of course. I would never diminish that. But to say that the death of the Jedi leader was insignificant, if most of the audience get that impression because they can't relate to him, then that is a flaw in how he has been presented. A major flaw.
By no means is the death of such a character a small loss for the good people in this story of and by itself. It just gets narratively overshadowed by Anakin's turn, but if a lot of fans don't acknowledge the death of the leader of the most important faction of good guys in the saga as significant at all, there is a serious problem. The only Jedi we know less about are those who died in Order 66.
The Jedi order was not just supposed to be just flawed. Yes, they should have flaws, but it should not be the only thing we remember. They were supposed to represent hope in the force of light. And their fall should be a tragedy. Now almost nothing of this matters to any fan because no one can relate to anyone who falls when the order does.
Instead, he spends a lot of time on characters we already know (which could have been done better in less time) and silly mascots.

Furthermore, even as far as Anakin is concerned, I think he was a much better character in the original trilogy when we had heard nothing of this prophecy about him. Just because he is a main character does not mean that making the story literally revolve around him by some poorly described ancient prophecy (at the expense of other major players in the story) is going to make the story any better, or even his character any better.

So, while I understand that the story is MAINLY about the Skywalkers, not Mace, I do not agree with what you seem to be implying by stating that at all. The saga should be about a whole, with various character playing their parts, and the protagonist's part being a bit more central than the rest (if that is the story). It should not be about Anakin, Anakin, Anakin, no one, Obi-Wan, Amidala, no one * 3, Yoda, no one * 100, Mace Windu, no one * 500, the rest of the Jedi.

But I agree with one thing. Happy Birthday, Star Wars! 35 years.

[C Of K]

Originally Posted by Darth Angelus

I see your point. Maybe I will look at Anakin slightly differently the next time, but my point remains that his change was not gradual enough. A far too great part of his personality change still occurs offscreen, between Episodes I and II. The way I see it, it would have been better if he had been closer to how he was in Episode I at the opening of Episode II, which is more pleasant and less full of himself, and we gradually see him change for the worse as the movie progresses. I think that is how most screenwriters would have approached it, too. We are forced to accept that too much has happened to his personality that we haven't seen (and this is about the main character of the saga, not Mace Windu) and we don't see enough of Obi-Wan and Anakin's friendship.

I see your point. One of the many problems with nine year old Anakin in Episode 1 is that he has to age so much for Episode 2. They could have left him pretty much unchanged, and it may have been better for the story, but George Lucas really wrote himself into a corner by Making Anakin a slave kid who is a really really selfless person. Because his transition into becoming a different person is so important, every step of it should be apparent on screen. But it would be difficult to accept that he hadn't changed after ten years.

Putting Anakin to spy on Palpatine was a very poor move. There is no doubt about that. Not only did undermine Anakin's faith in their order, but it allowed Palpatine to influence him further. Now, I know that they did not know what we know as an audience, but if they had the slightest sense that Anakin could not handle it, as Mace Windu evidently did, since he said so onscreeen, the plan should have been abolished in an instant. He actually sensed the dark side surrounding the chancellor. Then again, he may have been overruled by the council. But someone high up in the order made a poor decision, even though we are never told who was for and who was against Anakin spying on Palpatine on an individual level.

I'm pretty sure Windu was overruled. He seemed pretty upset about the whole matter. I actually wonder what side Obi Wan ended up on. The way Obi Wan seemed to put it all on the council when he was discussing it with Anakin, I thought maybe he had been against it. But I can't really be sure about that. I think Obi Wan expected Anakin to pull through for them, so maybe he had actually voted for...

As for what would have happened if it had been Yoda standing over Palpatine, it is hard to say what he would have done, although he did indeed come off as a little less brash. Then again, Windu coming off as brash may very well have been only poor screenwriting (or the fact that we do not picture Samuel L. Jackson in restrained, thoughtful roles) rather than an intentional character trait. He is not developed enough for us to even know whether he was supposed to be brash, but he can seem a bit like it onscreen, so let's go with it.

Sam Jackson as a jedi master never did seem quite right to me. It's laughable because it's so easy to imagine him saying hat he hopes Dooku burns in hell, or something like that.

I am not sure whether he actually broke the code or whether that was just Anakin's rigid interpretation of the code. As far as I am concerned, it is entirely possible that the Jedi order had very special regulations for emergencies like a Sith lord ruling the Republic, and I am not at all as convinced as some fans are that the Jedi code required of them to follow the law of the Republic to the letter in a situation like that, or if they even had to serve the Republic at all. As for executing an unarmed man, it is not quite how it was when someone has Force powers that can kill and Windu has just barely kept these Force powers at bay. Unlike some fans, I actually consider unarmed to be a state of inability to perform any kind of lethal attack, rather than just being out of a physical, visible weapon.
Still, as seen from Anakin's perspective, I guess you are right. It must have been nearly impossible for Anakin to just stand by and watch him just execute Palpatine.

Being that none of the 6 films actually make you aware of the actual rules of the code, you could be right. Anakin definitely believes that an "unarmed" man shouldn't be killed, but then he does have the unfortunate quality of sorely underestimating Sith Lords. Windu didn't have that problem, but even he seemed somewhat reluctant to strike Palpatine, who he knew was still a threat, lightsaber or no lightsaber.

I think there is a lot of merit to the idea that he actually struggled to create a great story, but I think there is more to it than that. I think the prequels are lacking in an internal critique process. While he may have held himself in check a bit more, I think others also held him in check a bit more, as well. I understand he wanted Luke to be a 65-year old general with a robot head, but got overruled. Similar stories go for Han and C-3PO. And while being held in check may have annoyed him back then, I think it may also have been the best for the movies.

No doubt about it. A robot head Yeesh! Thank goodness for democracy.

Even the power of the Jedi order seems to have no foundation in their numbers. Now, Windu tells Palpatine in Episode II that there is not enough of them to protect the Republic and that they are keepers of the peace, not soldiers, so ok, maybe Lucas has acknowledged this in a way. They are not even as much of a physical power factor in the galaxy as the ridiculously dimunitive clone army. The question is how they became as important as they are, being so ridiculously spread thin.

One thing about the movies is that so much detail is always left up in the air, not even brushed upon. I do know that in episode 1, the ranks of the jedi order had been in a decline for quite sometime. I read that they were below 10,000. What is left unsaid, is how many they were before the decline, when they were at their height. I seriously doubt there were ever millions of them. But then there is less logic in the fact that the Republic had no military before the Clone Wars. Even a govt. lacking all the corruption that stunted the Republic would have a difficult time keeping peace for very long under those circumstances. Disputes would pop up all the time.

Indeed, there are plenty of those to go around. I eventually got tired of arguing with those over at theforce.net, and lost my temper sometimes with the most annoying kinds of fans, who used the strangest leaps of logic and reason and calling their resulting conclusions fact, which got me banned, mostly by one particular moderator who had this totally relativisting idea that even the most childish, ill-founded and fallacious argument was just as valid as everything else. And I assure you that was a stupid and partial moderator, who punished one side (the "kick was legitmate" side) for saying the answer to the question in this topic was clear-cut and proven, when the other side (the "Sidious threw his saber thrown intentionally") had been just as sure of themselves before without getting even a warning. Regardless of your personal opinion, that is poor moderation at its worst. In retrospect, neither side had a strong reason to be sure of themselves, but one side should not be punished for doing what the other has done without warning on a forum.

My brother owns a Castlevania fansite. He's appointed a few moderators over the years. and he'll be the first to admit that most of them didn't deserve to be mods. It's unfortunate, but unworthy candidates abound. Thankfully, the moderators here are cool. I can't believe it's been years since I first joined the SFF Chronicles Network. I've never had a problem with any of the mods here. Or any of the members for that matter. I've had disagreements with a few members, but mostly very civil disagreements.

[Darth Angelus]

Originally Posted by C Of K

I see your point. One of the many problems with nine year old Anakin in Episode 1 is that he has to age so much for Episode 2. They could have left him pretty much unchanged, and it may have been better for the story, but George Lucas really wrote himself into a corner by Making Anakin a slave kid who is a really really selfless person. Because his transition into becoming a different person is so important, every step of it should be apparent on screen. But it would be difficult to accept that he hadn't changed after ten years.

He would definitely have changed in those ten years. It is just that he shouldn't have changed so much in ways that seemed to put his personality closer to the dark side.

I'm pretty sure Windu was overruled. He seemed pretty upset about the whole matter. I actually wonder what side Obi Wan ended up on. The way Obi Wan seemed to put it all on the council when he was discussing it with Anakin, I thought maybe he had been against it. But I can't really be sure about that. I think Obi Wan expected Anakin to pull through for them, so maybe he had actually voted for...

I'd guess Obi-Wan was against it, as well. I recall him telling Anakin he didn't want to put Anakin in that situation. It doesn't sound like he'd vote for it, on the council. It is just that he was had more faith in Anakin's ability to handle it than Mace Windu did, and thus he could defend the decision against Mace Windu's objection. Obi-Wan seemed to be somewhat against it because it was an unfair position to put Anakin in. Both of them did seem against it, just for somewhat different reasons.

Sam Jackson as a jedi master never did seem quite right to me. It's laughable because it's so easy to imagine him saying hat he hopes Dooku burns in hell, or something like that.

"This party's over!" definitely felt more like Sam Jackson than Jedi.
I think many people fail to take the role seriously for this reason.
When I talked about the weight of the role, I didn't mean it had to be Samuel L. Jackson, or even a human Jedi. It just had to be the Jedi leader who died during the purge.

Being that none of the 6 films actually make you aware of the actual rules of the code, you could be right. Anakin definitely believes that an "unarmed" man shouldn't be killed, but then he does have the unfortunate quality of sorely underestimating Sith Lords. Windu didn't have that problem, but even he seemed somewhat reluctant to strike Palpatine, who he knew was still a threat, lightsaber or no lightsaber.

Mace Windu may or may not have broken the code. I can see why some people believe he did, but I am not certain.
The problem really lies with Anakin's credibility here. He subsequently stood by and watched, not even making a token attempt to save Windu from being executed by Palpatine. By no means does that work with the claims to strict ethical rules he just claimed a moment earlier.
The thing about the idea about even the worst of criminals having the right to stand trial instead of being executed in vigilante style, well that would go both ways, would it not? So, while a strictly lawful good character like Superman, following a strict deontological code of ethics might have agreed with Anakin that Palpatine had to stand trial no matter the difficulty of the situation, and consequently may have saved Palpatine, I see no way such a character could just say Mace Windu (or any Jedi killed during Order 66), would not be entitled to that very same trial.
Anakin's motives were pretty far from pure, or what he claimed them to be. He "saved" Palpatine because it suited his self-interest. He didn't save Mace Windu because it did not suit his self-interest. Anakin might have thought Mace Windu broke the code, was a hypocrite (I really don't like that word very much because I have seen it misused all too often), but if Mace Windu (and the Jedi order) was possibly a hypocrite, Anakin was definitely one. I don't see any sincerity in the "wrong to kill an "unarmed" man" position, when the very ethical systems that would agree with him on that point would have required him to act completely differently during the raid on the temple and yes, when Windu was executed.
Furthermore, one of the most famous supporter of deontological ethics, the German 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant, argued something along the lines of that doing the right thing was only an ethical action when done against self-interest. While I do not agree with his line of reasoning 100%, because I believe that even ethical people may be trained in such a way that they make the choice to do the right thing on a subconscious level even without considering whether it would be beneficial to their self-interest, I do think he has a point. Saving the life of a person you love instead of letting them die does not really prove that you are an ethical person (even though not doing so would still be wrong), because it could be motivated by self-interest. Saving the life of someone you loathe instead of letting them die does say a bit more about your ethical integrity, as it may have been best for your self-interest to let them die but you chose to do the right thing despite that.
With that applied on Anakin, and I do think it is valid in his case, he comes off as saving Palpatine because of self-interest only. Mace Windu may not have been entirely in the right to go on with the execution (although I see his position as difficult as hell, because he was probably right that Palpatine would weasel himself through the legal system), and may have been rationalizing, Anakin was also rationalizing when he told himself he saved Palpatine because it was "wrong to execute an "unarmed" man", when in fact he failed to live up to any such moral system when it did not suit his selfish needs. Also, don't forget Count Dooku.

No doubt about it. A robot head Yeesh! Thank goodness for democracy.

One thing about the movies is that so much detail is always left up in the air, not even brushed upon. I do know that in episode 1, the ranks of the jedi order had been in a decline for quite sometime. I read that they were below 10,000. What is left unsaid, is how many they were before the decline, when they were at their height. I seriously doubt there were ever millions of them. But then there is less logic in the fact that the Republic had no military before the Clone Wars. Even a govt. lacking all the corruption that stunted the Republic would have a difficult time keeping peace for very long under those circumstances. Disputes would pop up all the time.

Yeah, that is definitely an issue there. But even with an estimation on the high end, with the average Jedi seemingly only a little more potent than your typical blaster-wielding soldier, they would realistically be rather insignificant. The only way they could wield any power would be through their political positions, not that they had any physical power to act as guardians, as implied.

My brother owns a Castlevania fansite. He's appointed a few moderators over the years. and he'll be the first to admit that most of them didn't deserve to be mods. It's unfortunate, but unworthy candidates abound. Thankfully, the moderators here are cool. I can't believe it's been years since I first joined the SFF Chronicles Network. I've never had a problem with any of the mods here. Or any of the members for that matter. I've had disagreements with a few members, but mostly very civil disagreements.

I know most people are not fit to be moderators. I am not sure I am, either, actually, and would prefer not to become one. Still, that one was worse than most, and probably the worst I have encountered on any forum.

[Huttman]

I've often thought about how I would introduce the entire saga to someone who has not seen any of it and I would have to show them all 6 movies in the order I saw them (4,5,6,1,2,3). Somewhere above it was mentioned the spoiler of it all is that you know all the Jedi die. However, there are too many other secrets revealed not to watch them in chronological order. That is why I enjoy, for the most part, the animated series to flush out more of the lesser characters. Unfortunately they don't do it as much as I would like, but it is something. As for Hayden's performance as Anakin, I have nothing but praise for it. I think he followed Georges' direction perfectly, as if he had a choice. But, his role was one of the stronger points in the prequels for me. He started off as a whiny kid just like Luke did. His emotional dealings with his mother's death and the ensuing Tuskin slaughter were well acted. The short romance and fireside scene were uncomfortable, but they were supposed to be. How many teenagers say the perfect things to their crush when they finally get the opportunity?
I know these points were not the original topic, but they were brought up somewhere in the above posts, and even if they put so much CGI in these movies that were unnecessary, these movies are still so beautiful to look at. Ah, here I go, prequel advocate again, sorry. I read what most think of them on this forum, and I was compelled to search and found a forum that is dedicated to people that really like the prequels as well as the originals and they made great points. No, I'm not going anywhere, but I'm not sure why there is so much animosity for those three films. I think I'll go watch Attack of the Clones right now, it has been a while. If I don't enjoy, I'll let you know. Thanks for reading my rant

[Darth Angelus]

Huttman, I have no real objection to Hayden's performance, either, but that is not because I think Anakin was one of the strong points of the prequels. I am just not sure anyone could have done better with what he was given. He might not look like I would have imagined a young Anakin, but I have nothing real against him as an actor.
As for your points not being of the original topic, it is ok, as the topics you comment on have already been brought up here, by me. Don't worry about it!
As for the animosity towards the prequels, I think many people are not getting involved with the characters and plot, but perhaps they can't quite put their finger on why. The characters just don't feel as real as those in the original trilogy, nor does the environment. Numerous plot holes don't help. If you can't see a coherent story, it is harder to suspend disbelief.
But I think redlettermedia.com has many good points. You will probably not agree with everything he says, but at least it might give you some insight and answer to your question about where the animosity is coming from.
It is not really even the CGI, but the fact that the story was made to serve the CGI instead of the other way around.