Did G. Lucas ever intend to portray the Jedi as a flawed institution in the prequels? Or was it added later in the EU? — Page 4

G&G-Fan said:

yotsuya said:

It is layering. A interesting story for children and also an interesting story for adults. Children see only the glorious Jedi and adults see the cracks and flaws and how the Jedi fail Anakin which leads to his fall. Children seen someone giving in to anger and hate and turning bad. A very good moral lesson. Adults see lopsided teachings, an evil mentor grooming Anakin for an evil future, and a dogmatic religious order out of step with the times. Kids see a story about what not to do and Adults see a story about what not to do - both aimed at their age group. Brilliant story telling. If only the dialog and directing was so brilliant.

George Lucas has said over and over that the films are made specifically for 12 year olds. Over and over. Why would he incorporate something that’s apparently so essential for the story that would go over their heads? Especially when 12 year olds are supposed to be the main audience? He literally says that the optimal age to watch Star Wars is when your 12. How does it make any sense that essential parts of his films would not be able to be digested by children? Because the answer is that it’s not. That’s something you made up. Why would he make the films so that Yoda is obviously meant to be the all-wise mentor figure and the Jedi the good guys? Because he wants children to use the Jedi as a moral basis. He wants children to learn Jedi teachings, AKA his own philosophy.

https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/692774762606379008/because-these-movies-were-made-for?source=share

Also Palpatine grooming Anakin is so obvious children would be able to see it. That’s not something only an adult would be able to see. That’s why you will see adults complain how about obvious Palpatine’s manipulation is. “Why is Anakin so stupid, why can’t he see he’s being manipulated?”, “Why’s Palpatine so obviously evil?” The answer is he’s making it obvious so that children can pick up on it.

The reason people project these alternative meanings on the prequels is because they’re films for children, and therefore will make it more complex then it actually is in a desperate attempt to make the films appeal to them more. Not that the prequels aren’t complex, but the fact is, “The Jedi are good, the Sith are bad” is a still a bit too black and white for some adults. So they have to make it “You see, Jedi ideology is actually somewhat wrong, they say you can’t ever be afraid or attached to anybody, what assholes!” when that’s not what Jedi ideology is. But people wanna cling on because the idea that the Jedi are morally perfect is boring to them. Adults project flaws onto the Jedi because they can’t relate to morally perfect characters like children can.

Um… have you watched the prequels? Us old farts knew Senator Palpatine was Darth Sideous when we saw him in his first scene. Young kids had no idea. The entire PT is written that way. And there is much more. Or else why as adults do we still love these films. His story telling is genius because it has layers for every audience. A five year old can watch it and love the gadgets and ships. A ten year old can love it because the story is incredible. An adult can love it because the story rings so true at every level.

And frankly I think that you ignoring what is clearly in the films is ignoring some of Lucas’s brilliance as a storyteller.

Also, you seem to think that Filoni made Clone Wars and Rebels in a vacuum away from Lucas. Lucas approved every episode of Clone Wars. They worked together, with Filoni learning both about the Jedi and about film making from Lucas constantly for nearly a decade. So when Filoni describes Qui-gon’s role and the deeper meaning to the PT, things that are covered the PT and Clone Wars, I don’t think you can blanket state that the publicaly available comments Lucas has made override that level of apprenticeship that Filoni has had. Lucas’s other public statements regarding things like when he came up with the PT story, how far back Leia was Luke’s sister, etc. are full of easily disproven information so I don’t tend to take Lucas at his word in interviews. He is selling Star Wars and there is a reason behind everything he says, but it is not always accurate to what he was thinking when he wrote the story or the scripts or directed the film. Often he greatly simplifies what he says and makes it sound like that is the way it has always been.

So yeah, when I rewatch that interview with Filoni I don’t hear him explaining what he thinks the PT story is. I hear him relaying to us what he learned from Lucas. His explanation of Duel of the Fates fits the name of the track, the name of the DVD menu title, and what we see on screen. Qui-gon is determined to train Anakin and instead he gets Obi-wan. Instead of a seasoned Master he gets a newbie Knight. Filoni’s interview puts it in words, but his words really ring true. Especially in light of how Qui-gon might have returned in ROTS. But after TPM, it is tracked where Anakin is facing a turning point. I think it is clear from how the track was used throughout the PT that the fate in question is Anakin’s and from there the entire galaxy. Anakin’s fall plunges the galaxy into decades of suffering. And it hinges on that duel on Naboo. It turned on who lived and who died. So I see no reason to not take Filoni’s desription as 100% accurate. He has always been more literal and forthcoming in interviews where Lucas seems to be forever altering things.

G&G-Fan said:

yotsuya said:

Us old farts knew Senator Palpatine was Darth Sideous when we saw him in his first scene. Young kids had no idea. The entire PT is written that way.

No, it’s written so it’s obvious he’s the Sith Lord. Why do you think him trying to egg Padme on is so on-the-nose? Him ordering Anakin to kill Dooku? Or the opera scene in Revenge of the Sith? There’s no attempt as a disguise of his voice or anything? It’s obvious on purpose. This is because Palpatine being evil is used to create tension. You’re supposed to know that something’s up with him. Most of the time it’s much better filmmaking to use tension then a surprise. Surprise can be great, but most of the time it’s way better to ring out the tension. It’s like Alfred Hitchcock’s famous quote. It lasts longer, it sticks with you more, it keeps you on the edge of your seat for longer.

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/79673/in-the-prequel-trilogy-are-we-the-audience-intended-to-know-palpatines-true

The blurb on the back of the DVD cover certainly suggests that it wasn’t a big secret…

“Obi-Wan Kenobi, the wise old Jedi from the original series, is a determined young apprentice and Palpatine, well known as the evil Emperor, is an ambitious Senator in the Galactic Republic…”

When Palpatine reveals himself as a Sith in ROTS, it’s not even made to feel like a big of a reveal to the audience. It’s nothing like Vader revealing himself to be Luke’s father, which is obviously written as a big reveal from the way the scene slowly crescendos to the famous line to the huge bombastic music afterwards. Palpatine’s revealing he’s a Sith is nothing like that. There’s no big “gotcha!” moment. It’s made to be like a reveal to Anakin, not the audience.

And there is much more. Or else why as adults do we still love these films. His story telling is genius because it has layers for every audience. A five year old can watch it and love the gadgets and ships. A ten year old can love it because the story is incredible. An adult can love it because the story rings so true at every level.

12 year old’s are very good at digesting the intended story of Star Wars. He literally says he made the films to teach 12 year old’s lessons.

"The original film was designed to allow young people to think outside the box. It was designed for 12-year-olds, adolescents, kids who were starting to think outside the box anyway, as a way of saying, “Let your fantasies run free, because this is the time to do it.” That was one of the original purposes of “Star Wars.”
-Boston.com, 2005

That’s why George Lucas uses his knowledge of avant-grade cinema to make all of his films very visual in their storytelling; it appeals to our primal reactions.

When Darth Vader first walks in the door in A New Hope, you know he’s the powerful evil dark lord of the Sith all because of the visuals. You see the huge guy with the black costume, the scary mask and the huge cape and immediately go, “He’s evil, he’s in charge, he’s super powerful, what a badass”. The same with Darth Maul in The Phantom Menace. You look at him and go, “Shit he looks like a Demon.” It’s why Mustafar blatantly looks like Hell. It’s why Sidious groans like a demon while Knighting Darth Vader (because Sidious is the Devil? Get it?). It’s why the Jedi Temple looks like a religious place of worship.

“The one exception to Coruscant’s predominant art deco style is the Jedi Temple. Lucas wanted the place where the Jedi to have a sacredness to it, as well as a daunting dose of grandeur. As a result, the Jedi complex is a bit Gothic, a bit pyramidal, and a but Chinese Forbidden City.”
-Jonathan Bresman, The Art of Star Wars: Episode I, 1999

"In contrast to the corporate coldness of the senate building, the Jedi Council architecture was designed to suggest a place of worship, a place that was both religious and monumental. For reference, Chiang took pictures of monuments from various cultures, then exaggerated their shapes and heights in his drawings.”
-Laurent Bouzereau & Jody Duncan, The Making of Star Wars: Episode I, 1999

“The symbol of good in the galaxy, the sacred Jedi Temple is a hybrid of Gothic, art deco, and ancient Chinese and Egyptian architecture. […] Inspired by the TransAmerica pyramid and the rest of the San Francisco skyline, Chiang and Natividad designed the temple complex to be distinctly different than the rest of Coruscant.”
-Jonathan Bresman, The Art of Star Wars: Episode I, 1999

(nothing about an “ivory tower” here like the Star Wars fanbase likes to claim it’s meant to be interpreted as)

The movies are meant to be visually obvious. As is the dialogue, which is why Lucas writes the dialogue in such a flat, utilitarian, and blatant way.

Also you seem to be underestimating how smart a 12-year-old can be.

And frankly I think that you ignoring what is clearly in the films is ignoring some of Lucas’s brilliance as a storyteller.

I literally addressed everything you said. I think George Lucas is brilliant too. And so does David-Talks-SW. You’re just coming away with the wrong stuff. If you read David-Talks-SW posts you would realize George’s actual vision is even more brilliant then your fanon.

Also, you seem to think that Filoni made Clone Wars and Rebels in a vacuum away from Lucas.

No, I don’t. In fact I’m one of the few people who actually recognize that The Clone Wars was made by George Lucas. Which is why it fits his vision more then Filoni’s.

This post proves that Filoni doesn’t even entirely understand The Clone Wars (the series everybody says is his own and not George’s?):
https://www.tumblr.com/jedi-order-apologist/698124259656155136/yeah-exactly-theres-a-world-of-difference?source=share

They worked together, with Filoni learning both about the Jedi and about film making from Lucas constantly for nearly a decade. So when Filoni describes Qui-gon’s role and the deeper meaning to the PT, things that are covered the PT and Clone Wars, I don’t think you can blanket state that the publicaly available comments Lucas has made override that level of apprenticeship that Filoni has had.

Except I literally gave you a link to a list of stuff that shows that Filoni interprets the prequels differently from Lucas in multiple different fashions, from The Jedi, to Anakin’s attachments, what they think of the Jedi joining The Clone Wars, and the state of the Republic. How about you actually read the shit I send?

https://www.tumblr.com/jedi-order-apologist/698124259656155136/yeah-exactly-theres-a-world-of-difference?source=share

The Clone Wars does not make Qui-Gon out to be “the only true Jedi Master”. It makes him out to be the guy who discovers force ghosting, which is exactly what he is in the movies. There’s nothing in TCW that implies that Qui-Gon should’ve been Anakin’s master and not Obi-Wan.

This post here describes the true meaning of Qui-Gon’s character:
https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/695196724085604352/analyzing-qui-gon-jinn?source=share

REBELS, however, has nothing to do with George Lucas. That’s Dave Filoni’s.

Lucas’s other public statements regarding things like when he came up with the PT story, how far back Leia was Luke’s sister, etc. are full of easily disproven information so I don’t tend to take Lucas at his word in interviews. He is selling Star Wars and there is a reason behind everything he says, but it is not always accurate to what he was thinking when he wrote the story or the scripts or directed the film. Often he greatly simplifies what he says and makes it sound like that is the way it has always been.

You can take him at his word because with Leia and Vader it was an attempt to make it seem like he knew everything from the beginning while with the Jedi he’s clearly giving them his own philosophy. Every lie George has done was for the sake of making it appear like what’s in the prequels was always the story. He lied about Vader always being Luke’s father and Leia always being his sister because he wants people to take the movies he’s making right now as “the true story”. That motivation doesn’t fit lying about the story he’s making at the time. It doesn’t make sense to say he was lying about the intent of the movies he’s making right now when the only reason he lies at all is to make the intent of the movies he’s making right now seem like the intent from the beginning. Come on, man. The motivations are not the same.

Like I said, the idea that George Lucas said the Jedi are the good guys just to appeal to the fanbase is absolute horseshit. Lucas doesn’t give a shit what the rabid fanbase says, he’ll praise Jar Jar and call Darth Vader pathetic and say Star Wars is for children (especially 12 year olds) despite how much backlash he’d get. He says what he says and means what he says. But you’re not gonna address that, are you? Cause you can’t.

I still think the most hilarious thing about your argument is your actually saying the guy notorious for saying “fuck the fans, fuck Hollywood, I’ll make what I want and say what I want” actually made up a bunch of lies about his films to cater to fans. Sorry but that’s a whole goddamn circus.

So yeah, when I rewatch that interview with Filoni I don’t hear him explaining what he thinks the PT story is. I hear him relaying to us what he learned from Lucas. His explanation of Duel of the Fates fits the name of the track,

It doesn’t fit the fact that Duel of the Fates plays in the battle between Yoda and Sidious which has nothing to do with Anakin. That reasoning for the name does fit with the fact that it was a track made to symbolize the battle between Good and Evil.

These quotes are from John Williams, not George Lucas. Wanna try your “George Lucas hid the truth” conspiracy theory horseshit on this one?

Qui-gon is determined to train Anakin and instead he gets Obi-wan. Instead of a seasoned Master he gets a newbie Knight.

Except if you actually read the shit I send it would prove why Obi-Wan was a great master for Anakin. Anakin’s fall was not Obi-Wan’s fault.

https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/660316936583905280/how-the-obi-wan-failed-anakin-subplot-was?source=share

Anakin would’ve been a great Jedi Master like Qui-Gon if it weren’t for Palpatine.

Filoni’s interview puts it in words, but his words really ring true.

Literally no. I already sent you a link to a post which proves everything he says wrong. Fucking read the shit I send before you reply to me looking like a butt-monkey.

https://www.tumblr.com/david-talks-sw/678157778408374273/hi-this-came-about-because-ive-seen-a-few-of?source=share

Especially in light of how Qui-gon might have returned in ROTS.

He did return in ROTS, but only to tell Yoda about force ghosting. That was his only planned appearance ever in that film.

But after TPM, it is tracked where Anakin is facing a turning point.

You mean when Yoda and Sidious are fighting?

And it hinges on that duel on Naboo. It turned on who lived and who died.

If you read the shit I sent you you would know it’s not true. The notion that Anakin was doomed to fail from the get-go is going against the principle of choice that George was adamant to include in the Prequels. Anakin’s fall was caused by his own choices, not the outcome of some duel that has nothing to do with him. This is Filoni coming up with head canon because he thinks the duel is “boring” if it has nothing to do with Anakin. I know this is head canon because it goes against what John Williams says the track is meant to symbolize and it goes against one of the main themes of the prequels.

Yes, fate/destiny plays a part in Star Wars, but whether you follow it is contingent on your choices. As Lucas puts it:

George Lucas says it hinged on Anakin choosing to kill Palpatine in the office. If there was no Palpatine, Anakin would’ve been just fine. Anakin’s turn was not Obi-Wan’s fault.

So I see no reason to not take Filoni’s desription as 100% accurate. He has always been more literal and forthcoming in interviews where Lucas seems to be forever altering things.

Lucas has not once altered his opinion on the Jedi. Back in the 1980s, 2000s, and nowadays, he still says the Jedi were right and still echoes their philosophy as if it were his own.

You also didn’t address that the Jedi’s philosophy is obviously Lucas’. Wanna know why? Cause you can’t (: you lost

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/j690eHY9EAQ
^^^ Here’s George Lucas just recently agreeing with Yoda in ROTS when he tells Anakin he needs to let go of what he fears to lose

^^^ Here’s George Lucas agreeing with the Jedi at a fucking University lecture

SparkySywer said:

I used to be the resident prequel hater here but I think you’re selling the prequels short, brother

I didn’t say the prequels weren’t complex at all though.

I said:

Not that the prequels aren’t complex, but the fact is, “The Jedi are good, the Sith are bad” is a still a bit too black and white for some adults. So they have to make it “You see, Jedi ideology is actually somewhat wrong, they say you can’t ever be afraid or attached to anybody, what assholes!” when that’s not what Jedi ideology is. But people wanna cling on because the idea that the Jedi are morally perfect is boring to them. Adults project flaws onto the Jedi because they can’t relate to morally perfect characters like children can.

People like to cling to the idea that the Jedi were corrupt because it’s makes the prequels more complex then “The Jedi were right, Anakin was wrong.” But that’s not what Lucas is going for. They just don’t wanna accept that Anakin only turned to the dark side because he was greedy for the power to cheat death. It makes Anakin’s turn seem more reasonable or logical to say, “Well actually he was rebelling against a religion that bulled him into repressing his emotions, therefore it was reasonable for him to commit genocide” (not that that justifies killing all the Jedi anyway, but some people like to act like it does). But that’s not true and that’s not the narrative of the prequels. The prequels still have complex themes about democracies and dictatorships, greed, possessive love, war, etc. But it is not, in any way, a critique of the Jedi or a critique of organized religion.

George Lucas made the prequels to show how democracies become dictatorships and how fear, greed, and refusing to let go leads to the dark side. That’s it.

Talk about overload. And you keep referring to someone else’s analysis. I’m not interested in what someone else thinks. I’m interested in your analysis and interpretation. If you are just going to parrot someone else ad nauseam, then you need to just stop. It has just become noise.

My primary source is the movies themselves. Then what the creators have said based on the reliability of their history. And if you are skilled enough with Google or any other search engine, you can quickly find information that refutes everything you just posted. I prefer to file information away in my head than save the links to throw at people who dare disagree with me. You write as if my opinion is a personal affront to you. Frankly, this post has just proven that I don’t really care what your opinion is. I will trust in my sources and keep my opinion and share it when appropriate.

That you credit Lucas with Clone Wars and yet ignore all the things in Clone wars that disagree with your talking points… well, we could go on but what is the point. You will just post another diatribe that isn’t worth reading because it is so long and repetitive and is trying to force me to change my opinion - which is not going to happen. I firmly believe Lucas’s 6 saga films clearly show that the Jedi in the PT were flawed. They were not able to address the issues Anakin came to them with. It was a failing on the part of the Jedi that Anakin fell. Any other interpretation, as far as I’m concerned, does not fit with the films Lucas made.

And to give you an idea how much I trust Lucas, he has been quoted as saying both that the force is not like yin/yang and that it is exactly like yin/yang. I trust the movies that he made and what he imparted to Dave Filoni in thousands of story meetings and the series that have resulted from that. Clone Wars, Rebels, The Mandelorian, and the ST are colored by that more than what Lucas said in various interviews that conflict with that or other things he said.

So just please stop posting all this noise. Share your own thoughts and stop trying to argue me into changing my opinion. It isn’t going to happen.

Servii said:

Lucas has not once altered his opinion on the Jedi. Back in the 1980s, 2000s, and nowadays, he still says the Jedi were right and still echoes their philosophy as if it were his own.

I’m not so sure that his perception has never changed. There was no mention in the OT of a need for Luke to leave behind his attachments. Obi-Wan cautions him to not let the Emperor use those attachments against him, but that’s not the same thing. Also, Lucas was able to give the greenlight on plot points in the EU, so he must have been aware of and greenlit the Luke-Mara Jade romance and marriage and the New Jedi Order doctrine changes. Of course, he later said he disagreed with the idea of Luke getting married, but that was later.

Exactly. Lucas revised his ideas many times. And some of the things he can be quoted saying come from his point of view at the time - both what he was working on and who was asking the questions, and even what question was asked. I think that it is very clear from the films themselves that the Jedi are flawed. They are too attached to the Republic and politics and grown too bound by tradition. They are not evil, but they are not what they once were or what they could have been. There are cracks in their visage and the PT show that. And when you compare it to the OT, it becomes even more obvious. If that weren’t he case, Yoda and Obi-wan wouldn’t have so drastically changed training methods for Luke. Even tipping point. The council turns down Anakin in TPM because there is much fear in him. And yet in TESB, Yoda notes that there is much anger in Luke. And when Luke says “I am not afraid,” Yoda replies, “You will be. You will be.” And while the OT came first in our timeline, it came after in the Star Wars timeline. So that revision means that Yoda and Obi-wan acknowledge that something has changed. They adopt different training techniques. In reality George might have just forgotten, but when you watch all the films (and this isn’t even getting into the things like Qui-gon going against the council or Mace being so harsh with Anakin) it feels very clear that they have re-evaluated everything to make sure that Luke gets the customized training he needs to be a success. Anakin had the default traditional training and it didn’t fit. Obi-wan admits his failing in ANH. What Lucas intended as he was making the PT may have changed from film to film as it did in the OT. The end results is 6 films that show a failing Jedi order and how they fail the greatest of them, and then the last two Jedi trying to resurrect it with Luke.

That is how I see it anyway.

I appreciate G&G-Fan pulling from the good tumblr post showing that Filoni’s interpretation of the films isn’t always the same as Lucas’. It is a good reminder.

But I do think it is interesting that Filoni, who has worked closely with George and probably knows George’s opinion on his own work more than anyone, would still have his own opinion about Qui-Avon and the failings of the Jedi even though he would know better than anyone that it doesn’t gel with George’s own view.

I think there is truth in both perspectives, not only George and Filoni’s, but also G&G and yotsuya. Because yes, George has stated his view on the story plenty of times, but it is also valid for the audience to look just at the films and pick up an interpretation. George might have had Opinion A in mind, but he isn’t a perfect filmmaker and may not totally conveyed what he was actually trying to convey. The Jedi come off as quite cold in the films, and operate out of a literally ivory tower. Arguably they have become this way because of Sith machinations and it doesn’t have to do with the Jedi system being fundamentally broken, but whether George meant to do it or not, he does not depict the Jedi as perfect. They are good, but they make mistakes.

And why can’t there be some truth in both views? Why can’t Anakin have failed the Jedi, but the Jedi also failed Anakin in some ways? I think there is a lesson in both directions: Jedi have to confront their fears or otherwise be consumed by them, but a Jedi must also remember that institutions can also obscure the will of the Force if one forgets to listen.

Seem like the debate is getting pretty heated but I’ve seen both views conveyed quite a lot online, and I think both views are interesting and valid.

RogueLeader said:

I appreciate G&G-Fan pulling from the good tumblr post showing that Filoni’s interpretation of the films isn’t always the same as Lucas’. It is a good reminder.

But I do think it is interesting that Filoni, who has worked closely with George and probably knows George’s opinion on his own work more than anyone, would still have his own opinion about Qui-Avon and the failings of the Jedi even though he would know better than anyone that it doesn’t gel with George’s own view.

I think there is truth in both perspectives, not only George and Filoni’s, but also G&G and yotsuya. Because yes, George has stated his view on the story plenty of times, but it is also valid for the audience to look just at the films and pick up an interpretation. George might have had Opinion A in mind, but he isn’t a perfect filmmaker and may not totally conveyed what he was actually trying to convey. The Jedi come off as quite cold in the films, and operate out of a literally ivory tower. Arguably they have become this way because of Sith machinations and it doesn’t have to do with the Jedi system being fundamentally broken, but whether George meant to do it or not, he does not depict the Jedi as perfect. They are good, but they make mistakes.

And why can’t there be some truth in both views? Why can’t Anakin have failed the Jedi, but the Jedi also failed Anakin in some ways? I think there is a lesson in both directions: Jedi have to confront their fears or otherwise be consumed by them, but a Jedi must also remember that institutions can also obscure the will of the Force if one forgets to listen.

Seem like the debate is getting pretty heated but I’ve seen both views conveyed quite a lot online, and I think both views are interesting and valid.

Thank you for your voice of reason and wisdom.

I was trying to keep focused on the question in the OP about the Jedi being flawed. The PT is a story of failings all around.

That is all fair G&G! And good point about the question of the original post for this thread. I do agree with you that it does seem like Lucas has the view of Jedi are generally right, and most of the responsibility rests with Anakin himself.

I always was bugged by the Sequel Trilogy never really exploring how the Jedi were going to grow and evolve to keep history from repeating itself. I’m kind of curious what you’re thoughts are on this, but do you think the Sequel Trilogy is actually being pretty faithful to George’s view of the Jedi by having Luke admit that his opinions on the Jedi were wrong in TLJ, and by having Rey just affirm the Jedi path rather than ever suggesting she is going to reform it in some way?

And even though I personally wanted Ben Solo to survive TROS, I suppose having him give his life to save Rey also makes a statement on Lucas’ whole “selflesses vs selfishness” theme. Anakin loved Padmé, so much so he couldn’t accept living without her. So that represents that selfish, possessive love. Whereas Ben also loves Rey, and for most of the trilogy does want to possess her, but in the end he does what Anakin couldn’t, and displays this literal act of selfless love, accepting that in order for her to live he can’t be with her. Definitely not trying to say the ST is brilliant by any means, but I might could see how this fits with what George’s opinions actually were regarding what it means to be a Jedi. But I think George probably would’ve thought of a more inspired ending than just blowing up Palpatine again. Maybe I’m wrong though.

Also should’ve realized you were a Spider-Man fan! Not really related to this thread but I wanted to share this thought with you:

When I saw No Way Home in theaters, I really wished the two after credit scenes had been two scenes of the the other two Spider-Man back in their own universes. With Andrew, we would’ve seen him meet or run into his version of MJ, kind of implying that he will be able to finally find love in. I’m not 100% what we could’ve gotten with Toby, but I like the idea of him with a son or daughter, and seeing MJ come home and realizing she is the mom, and maybe he is gonna retire the suit and settle down now or something. Idk, it could’ve tied into that idea that even though Tom is letting Zendaya/MJ go for now, that a universe will find a way to bring them back together eventually. It also would’ve given a nice epilogue to both Andrew and Toby’s version of the characters. Even though we didn’t get to see that, it’s kind of my head canon (though honestly I’m not a big MCU fan so I don’t have a lot of those). I do agree with you about the Captain America time travel thing and the Spider-Man villain idea you have. Makes the most sense.

Servii said:

That’s the problem with Grogu. Grogu not only isn’t putting his all into his training because he misses Din Djarin, but he would absolutely choose saving Din over saving 100 people in a burning building. That doesn’t make him a bad person, but it does make him a bad Jedi. So Luke makes him choose, Din or being a Jedi. Grogu chooses Din, and he respects his choice.

Grogu’s a baby, though. He’s not able yet to understand complex moral questions or to make life-changing decisions. When Luke puts that choice in front of Grogu, there’s no way Grogu at this point can fully comprehend what that choice means. Naturally, a baby is going to feel a strong bond to their parent, and lack the high ideals necessary to commit to being a Jedi. But that doesn’t mean Grogu wouldn’t have grown into a good Jedi.

Every quote I’ve read says Lucas didn’t pay any attention at all to the EU. He always viewed it as a separate universe from his. Which is why he ignored it in everything he made. The Prequels contradict the EU as does The Clone Wars. You’d have fans yelling at him because he changed Koriban to Moraband and it’s just like, well yeah, he didn’t give a shit. When did he “veto” anything?

Read this. There are some more examples that come to mind. George rejected the idea of bringing Vader back in Dark Empire, for example.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/2aa88b8f4c2689eb2eab84a640f2f813/71d222a46ea38c02-24/s1280x1920/3046f98bb19b4a789b42c5c3b55ca791294108ad.pnj

See, the way I look at it is that Luke at that point is still stuck in the groove of reviving the PT Jedi. I feel him forcing Grogu to make that choice was premature. He should have just given the mail shirt to Grogu and continued his training. This is perhaps one area where I have really appreciated the ST films. I feel they set the Jedi to reset. Rey has the oldest Jedi texts and is rebuilding the Jedi the way they were originally. The PT Jedi sit in opposition to the Sith and the Sith are now gone so some of their ways are no longer needed. Not to say that they were flawed, but colored by their opposition to the Sith. I feel Luke would have been more successful if he had been able to make such a complete reset and he wouldn’t have made what I consider a mistake with Grogu and then misjudged both Ben Solo and Rey. I feel Rey is the first truly balanced Jedi we have seen since the old Dark Horse comics told tales of the ancient Jedi.

I also feel that what we are seeing in the new High Republic era stuff are the Jedi Lucas kept talking about while what he gave us in the PT is at the point where the cracks are showing and the flaws are coming to the surface.

G&G-Fan, don’t know if this is you, but someone mad a long-ass post on the Star Wars subreddit, r/MawInstallation today, basically defending the same idea you were. Thought it might be worth sharing here since it is relevant to the thread!

https://www.reddit.com/r/MawInstallation/comments/ys4avb/the_jedi_were_the_good_guys_of_the_prequels/

RogueLeader said:

G&G-Fan, don’t know if this is you, but someone mad a long-ass post on the Star Wars subreddit, r/MawInstallation today, basically defending the same idea you were. Thought it might be worth sharing here since it is relevant to the thread!

https://www.reddit.com/r/MawInstallation/comments/ys4avb/the_jedi_were_the_good_guys_of_the_prequels/

I usually avoid reddit so I’m won’t follow the link, but the title is intriguing. I would have to agree that in the Prequels the Jedi ARE the good guys. They were always intended to be. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have flaws. And they are not even to blame for all the flaws because of the circumstances. Palpatine, and who knows how many generations before that, have been working in secret. I can’t say whether all of them have had the goal of defeating the Jedi, but Palpatine certainly did. He wanted ultimate power on all levels. And he got it. To do it he played a lot of games with the Jedi. He corrupted more than one of them. He put the galaxy into a war to get what he wanted and the Jedi felt the impact in their ability to access the force. So they admit to that flaw on screen. The other things are written into the story. I never accept George Lucas’s words of what he meant over what he actually wrote. His history of accuracy is not good. His recollections tend to be unreliable. Mainly because he answers everything from a certain point of view which may not be what he was thinking when he was writing, directing, and editing. He is notorious for doing this with the Original Trilogy.

But yes, the Jedi are without any doubt the good guys. But they are operating under a handicap and we are not seeing them at their best.

What’s conveyed by the writing, cinematography, editing, and cultural context > authorial intent.

SparkySywer said:

BedeHistory731 said:

What’s conveyed by the writing, cinematography, editing, and cultural context > authorial intent.

I don’t know how useful of an analytical tool this is, but if disagreement between the author and audience is a miscommunication, then we should analytically look at a work both for its intended message and its received message, which are coequal.

That makes sense, the idea of miscommunication that takes into account audience and author perception. I tend to put more weight on audience perception, since it says far more about the effect the work has rather than its intentions. Still, authorial intent is necessary for a comprehensive understanding. Even if it is just one voice among many commentators.

It’s probably my own experiences in fandoms that have me being initially dismissive of authorial intent, especially in fandoms where authors cling to a creator’s every word as gospel and beg for them to explain away all the sense of mystery and imagination in the worlds they’ve created. The creators’ words should be seen as fallible, ever-evolving, and constantly in conversation with public perception. What an author says on release day is likely to be different from what you say on a making-of documentary years later.

G&G-Fan said:

BedeHistory731 said:

What’s conveyed by the writing, cinematography, editing, and cultural context > authorial intent.

This thread is entirely about whether it was George’s intentions or not. So that’s the discussion. It’s irritating whenever this discussion is had and someone has to come up and say, “It wasn’t conveyed well”, like yeah, no shit. Obviously it wasn’t since so many people are confused. But whether it was conveyed well isn’t the topic of discussion.

People will talk about how George was such a genius for making the Jedi Order ideologically flawed when that wasn’t his idea, and if you follow his intent they aren’t flawed in the ways people think. That wasn’t George’s idea, it’s yours.

Also no matter how well an intent was conveyed or not the authorial intent is still canon. If you decide to not watch the films from a different lens from what the author had in mind that’s your head canon, or fanon. Now obviously canon doesn’t matter to you and that’s totally cool. The issue is when someone talks about this re-interpretation of the Prequels as if it is canon.

I think you need to read up on how the creative process works. There are a lot of creative people who have shared their experiences. You start with the idea. Then you develop it. You work on it and improve it. In the written word (which is where Star Wars always starts) you write treatments and drafts. The story slowly changes as you develop it. We can see from the many interviews with Lucas over the years that this is absolutely the case for Star Wars. Lucas added in concept art. In some cases it archives some of his thoughts better than the writing. And you can see how the Jedi change over time as he worked on the saga from 1974 to 2012. So where do you want to pinpoint his intent? At what point do you freeze the fluid process to determine absolute intent? I don’t think you can. I think the OT very much shows where Lucas was with the Jedi when he started the PT and how he started it, with Qui-gon going against the council, that Kenobi trains Anakin against Yoda’s better judgement, and all the flaws that are crystal clear in the OT, that the Jedi were written from the start as flawed. They are too wrapped up in politics. They are being too strict in their teachings. They aren’t properly in tune with the force. They moved the bar to train Luke. The list of issues between how Luke was trained vs. how Anakin was trained vs. how Ahsoka was trained is huge. If Lucas didn’t go into the PT intending the Jedi to be flawed, he really screwed up because so much of what the story is in the PT is about the Jedi being flawed. They aren’t perfect at this point. They aren’t what they once were. It is written that way.

Here is how I interpret Lucas’s many comments. He does the PT. Interest in the Jedi skyrockets. He wants to encourage that because he likes his fans and there are a bunch of ways to make money on that interest. He isn’t going to go into interviews telling fans not to like the PT Jedi because they are flawed. As individual Jedi I don’t think they are. I think it is the institution and traditions and their function in the Republic that is flawed. So Lucas focus’s on Jedi being Jedi and rather than on the institution. He spends time in interviews telling fans how to be the ideal Jedi. He says that was his intention all along, just like he claims the Vader was going to be Luke and Leia’s father all along (which is demonstrably false). Lucas’s quote on the matter are not reliable for accessing the intent of Lucas the creative genius. Creative genius lives in the moment and does what the story requires (AOTC has a few things were you can tell he needed to pass the script by some friends like he did with ANH or a good screenwriter like TESB and ROTJ).

When it comes to his actual intent as a writer, I don’t think he often shares such insights publicly. I think John Williams and David Filoni probably know more of his intent than most others. Ralph McQuarrie might have as well. Those who have worked creatively with him. Duel of the Fates used a Welsh Poem translated into Sanskrit and then adjusted to fit the music.

Under the tongue root
a fight most dread,
and another raging
behind in the head

It is clear from this that the PT was going to be about the fight in Anakin’s head. This was externalized by the fight with Maul. That Filoni (after working for nearly a decade with Lucas and hearing first hand all about the Jedi directly from the source) tells us that the title directly refers to the fate of Anakin and that seems to agree with the lyrics Williams picked and that Qui-gon could have given Anakin a different path, one where he would not follow what they council taught, indicates to me that it is accurate and that the Jedi Institution has become hidebound and is in as perilous a situation as the Republic itself. I feel this is intrinsic to the PT and is written into the core of the store. So I very much feel it is Lucas’s creative intent that the Jedi of the PT are flawed. It is not in his interests as the owner and creator of Star Wars to alienate all the Jedi fans so his official line is quite different from the story he told on screen. Because he is not just saying what is in the films, but expanding on it and explaining it. Fans will take that and run with it. He knows that fans want to believe the Jedi are great (they once were before the PT, which the High Republic era should be showing us) just as other fans want to believe he always intended Vader (phonemically almost identical to the Germanic word for father) to be Luke’s father.

The question really lies in what you think shows intent. I feel that a writer’s previous writings show their creative intent. I feel that their work shows their intent far more than interviews. In an interview you have to ask why they are giving the interview and what they are looking to get out of it. I feel that Lucas’s intent in interviews is quite clear. I was involved in the West End RPG back before the SE came out. Much of what you find in the PT Jedi’s skills and abilities can be found in that game. Timothy Zahn was handed some of the sourcebooks as references to write his trilogy. Many of the alien names come from that game. And the game in turn was developed from the OT movies and other novels. Brain Daly first mentioned Med Packs in his Han Solo Trilogy which didn’t become a canon thing until TLJ. Lucas had a hand in all of these things. Lucas allowed Luke to get married and have a son in the EU. He had his own fall to the dark side and redemption. They did Tales of the Jedi comics in the 90’s which go back 4000-5000 years before and explore the ancient Jedi and the rise of the Sith. This all relates to fan expectation of what the Jedi would be revealed to be in the PT. Lucas did not want to disappoint while at the same time I think it is clear from what he wrote that he crafted the PT Jedi order to have issues that would aid in Anakin’s downfall.

Is the PT Jedi order evil? No. They just have issues. They are stuck in tradition over individuality. They would rather all their students conform rather than tailor their individual training. Anakin needed that individual touch. He needed a master who did not follow the council. Instead he got Obi-wan Kenobi who followed the council. I get this from the dialog in TPM.

Now, if you choose to accept that Lucas is giving us the unvarnished truth (something I just can’t agree with based on other established facts) I can see where you would think that they Jedi are not flawed. It is a nice think to think that Anakin’s fall was his own doing. That would be a valid story to tell. But the larger tragedy is that the Jedi order failed him. Their strict adherence to tradition and teaching by the book (Master Jocasta is emblematic of what is wrong with the PT Jedi going by how Lucas wrote them) is a contributing factor to his fall and his story could have played out differently had he been taught a different way. See, I heard Dave Filoni talk about the meaning of Duel of the Fates and I instantly absorbed it because it agreed to completely with everything I have seen in the PT story over the years. It was not some new insight. I knew that Qui-gon would have been a different teacher and things might have turned out different. But that interpretations makes it a certainty. The pieces fall into place. Lucas’s intent is clear. From his writing that is. From his interviews, not so much.

The the question really comes down to what sources you want to go by for Lucas’s intent. If you want to go by the works themselves, you get one answer. If you want to go by the interviews you get another. It is all a matter of which weigh in as more significant to you. There is no right answer because both are valid views. I hold a writer’s work reveals the author’s intent far better than any interview every could.

There is more to my argument as well, but the site rules and normal forum decorum about politics and religion prevent me from addressing those. Suffice it to say that I see many parallels to existing institutions in Star Wars and many of them are equally hidebound and on the bring of crumbing and if coupled with such political turmoil might collapse as the Jedi order did. I see warnings in the failings of the Jedi that match many other things in the saga. I very much believe that the flaws and failings of the Jedi that many perceive are very deliberate and intentional and I also believe his comments can be viewed as having a similar very deliberate and intentional purpose and both can exist together if you look at it from a certain point of view.

Servii said:

The takeaway I’m getting from this thread is that George did intend for the Jedi Order to be flawed in the sense that they had a false sense of security and so failed to stop the Sith when they had the chance, but that George didn’t intend for the Jedi ideology itself to be flawed. That was an EU concept.

But Lucas knew what the EU was doing and even had a hand in directing it (though no creative input). Also, it is not the ideology that is flawed, but the institution and traditions. Good teachers must tailor the lessons to an individual student’s needs and abilities. This is why at the highest levels of education, teaching is one on one. As the Padawan is to the Master. When you expect all students to meet the same standards, you have a flaw in your institution.

SparkySywer said:

BedeHistory731 said:

What’s conveyed by the writing, cinematography, editing, and cultural context > authorial intent.

I feel like I’ve 180’d completely very quickly on this. Storytelling is a form of communication, and taking messages from a someone that they didn’t intend to convey would be considered dishonesty, or at the very least unfair. I think Death of the Author is a useful tool, especially in cases where an author doesn’t really get the appeal of their own work (e.g. George Lucas, JK Rowling) which go to show that treating authorial intent as objective truth misses very important aspects of a work of art. But I think placing authorial intent on such a low pedestal also misses very important aspects of a work of ar. I don’t know how useful of an analytical tool this is, but if disagreement between the author and audience is a miscommunication, then we should analytically look at a work both for its intended message and its received message, which are coequal.

I would tend to agree with you, but in this instance I think that the author (GL) has a history of being very loose with the historical facts in interviews and restructuring the story of the past to fit the narrative they are trying to tell. In this case it is not in his interests with his fanbase to delve into the flaws he wrote into the Jedi Order, but it is in his interests to expound on the ideals of the Jedi Order. He already established a baseline with Luke in the OT. In the PT he establishes a new baseline he doesn’t explain why it is different. He goes on as if it was always that when that was clearly not what he was doing when he wrote the OT. Fear had a minor part in Luke’s training. Ben and Yoda were more focused on anger and hate and not giving in to the dark side. Anakin is told not to fear. Controlling fear is the Jedi order. And yet from Luke we know that is not true. From Anakin’s fall we know that is not true. He doesn’t fall from fear, but from letting anger and hate consume him (exactly what they told Luke to avoid). His possessive love of Padme and his fear of losing her (like he lost his mother) drive him to the dark side. So fear has little to do with it. Anakin needed different lessons. Then Ben and Yoda acknowledge their mistakes when they train Luke indicates they see the flaws in how Anakin was trained and if they could go back and do it again Anakin would not fall. So it is a flaw in the system, in the institution. One that they fix for Luke.