Sign In

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 3

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The problem with that is what Lucas told Filoni. It wasn’t just Anakin’s need for power, it is how he was taught that led to that. The duel between Qui-gon and Darth Maul was the duel for Anakin’s fate. Had Qui-gon won, Anakin would have turned out different. Qui-gon is portrayed as a rebel against the Jedi council. Anakin needed an unorthodox teacher teacher like that. Instead he got the by the book teacher in Obi-wan (his comments to Qui-gon both point out how out of step with the council Qui-gon was and how in step he himself was). That plus Palpatine whispering in his ear for thirteen years.

Also, the feeling I get from the PT is that the Jedi are flawed. I stopped reading the EU materials long before the PT came out so I have no clue if they support or contradict the impression I get from the PT itself. The flaw in the Jedi teaching does not lie in their dogma. It lies in the tools they teach their younglings and padawans to resist the temptation of the dark side. What we get is that they don’t teach them anything. They teach dark side abstinence and avoidance. So when the dark side comes calling, they have no defenses to resist it. Fear lead to anger which leads to hate which leads to suffering. Anakin is too old at 9 and has some fear of leaving his mother. So instead of addressing his fear, the Council doesn’t want to teach him. Obi-wan has what Yoda taught him as a youngling and what Qui-gon taught him as a padawan, but we clearly see that Anakin never loses his fear of losing the ones he cares about. There is this wonderful meme someone made of Grogu long after Din Djarin was gone that sums up what Anakin needed. It is not the attachment that is the problem, it is the fear of losing the attachment. Everyone dies so a properly trained Jedi must be prepared to accept the loss and carry on. If you don’t fear the loss, an attachment cannot lead to the dark side. One simple tool, though probably a hard lesson. So I’ve always felt the flaws in the Jedi teachings were there in the films without need to refer to an outside source. Though what Filoni had to say was very enlightening.

I’d argue that we don’t actually know Lucas told that to Filoni. (This is all my opinions and speculation of course.) Because yeah, Filoni said it and he worked with Lucas, but he’s his own person with his own ideas just like Gary Kurtz and Lawrence Kasdan were. Add that to the fact that everything Lucas has said, which I gave some examples of earlier, is in contradiction with what Filoni said, I genuinely cannot believe Filoni got those ideas from Lucas.

“The fact that everything must change and that things come and go through his life and that [Anakin] cannot hold onto things, which is a basic Jedi philosophy that he isn’t willing to accept emotionally and the reason that is because he was raised by his mother rather than the Jedi. If he’d have been taken in his first years and started to study to be a Jedi, he wouldn’t have this particular connection as strong as it is and he’d have been trained to love people but not to become attached to them."

I think its safer to assume that Filoni, being as big of an EU as he is, got a lot of ideas and interpretations from it, where lots of novels did raise questions about the Jedi because Lucas did not effectively convey what he was trying to say. Unless Lucas changed his mind on the topic of course, which with his history is completely possible, in which case I digress and will stand corrected.

I completely agree with you about the films and what they show, which is why I try to separate what Lucas said and understand it because it shows he didn’t do as good a job as he should have. It is easier for me to accept the idea that Lucas wanted the plot and story to show one thing, but the result was not what he wanted and its too late to try to fix it. The Jedi come off as a weird group who try to isolate themselves, seem to dismiss emotion, etc. and we get not clear reasons why, which makes us wonder why Anakin’s supposed love for his mother and Padme is wrong.

Also, Lucas’ idea of Attachment is not a bond nor is it love. It is purely greed, greed formed around people. These quotes sum it up well:

“Try not to confuse attachment with love. Attachment is about fear and dependency, and has more to do with love of self than love of another. Love without attachment is the purest love because it isn’t about what others can give you because you’re empty. It is about what you can give others because you’re already full.” — Yasmin Mogahed

“The problem is always that we mistake the idea of love for attachment. You know, we imagine that the grasping and clinging that we have in our relationships shows that we love. Whereas actually it is just attachment, which causes pain. You know, because the more we grasp the more we are afraid to lose, then if we do lose, then of course then of course we are going to suffer.

Attachment says: I love you, therefore I want you to make me happy. And genuine love says: I love you, therefore I want you to be happy. If that includes me, great, if it doesn’t include me, I just want your happiness. And so, it’s a very different feeling. You know, attachment, it’s like holding very tight. But genuine love is like holding very gently, nurturing, but allowing things to flow, not to be held tightly. The more tight we hold on to others, the more we will suffer." - Tenzin Palmo Jetsunma

So yeah, Lucas also failed to make it clear what exactly attachment was, because the only character we see in situations with family and a significant other is with Anakin, who also happens to be the one with attachments the films/Jedi are shunning.

To make it clear, I am a prequel fan. I grew up with them. This particular issue is the one flaw I find in these films and to me its a pretty big one because 1. I like knowing what storytellers want to do with their stories and 2. Because, as I’ve said, I think Lucas failed to deliver this point, and at the end of the day the general consensus and understanding of an art by the audience becomes the more important part.

Author
Time

of_Kaiburr_and_Whills said:

The problem with that is what Lucas told Filoni. It wasn’t just Anakin’s need for power, it is how he was taught that led to that. The duel between Qui-gon and Darth Maul was the duel for Anakin’s fate. Had Qui-gon won, Anakin would have turned out different. Qui-gon is portrayed as a rebel against the Jedi council. Anakin needed an unorthodox teacher teacher like that. Instead he got the by the book teacher in Obi-wan (his comments to Qui-gon both point out how out of step with the council Qui-gon was and how in step he himself was). That plus Palpatine whispering in his ear for thirteen years.

Also, the feeling I get from the PT is that the Jedi are flawed. I stopped reading the EU materials long before the PT came out so I have no clue if they support or contradict the impression I get from the PT itself. The flaw in the Jedi teaching does not lie in their dogma. It lies in the tools they teach their younglings and padawans to resist the temptation of the dark side. What we get is that they don’t teach them anything. They teach dark side abstinence and avoidance. So when the dark side comes calling, they have no defenses to resist it. Fear lead to anger which leads to hate which leads to suffering. Anakin is too old at 9 and has some fear of leaving his mother. So instead of addressing his fear, the Council doesn’t want to teach him. Obi-wan has what Yoda taught him as a youngling and what Qui-gon taught him as a padawan, but we clearly see that Anakin never loses his fear of losing the ones he cares about. There is this wonderful meme someone made of Grogu long after Din Djarin was gone that sums up what Anakin needed. It is not the attachment that is the problem, it is the fear of losing the attachment. Everyone dies so a properly trained Jedi must be prepared to accept the loss and carry on. If you don’t fear the loss, an attachment cannot lead to the dark side. One simple tool, though probably a hard lesson. So I’ve always felt the flaws in the Jedi teachings were there in the films without need to refer to an outside source. Though what Filoni had to say was very enlightening.

I’d argue that we don’t actually know Lucas told that to Filoni. (This is all my opinions and speculation of course.) Because yeah, Filoni said it and he worked with Lucas, but he’s his own person with his own ideas just like Gary Kurtz and Lawrence Kasdan were. Add that to the fact that everything Lucas has said, which I gave some examples of earlier, is in contradiction with what Filoni said, I genuinely cannot believe Filoni got those ideas from Lucas.

“The fact that everything must change and that things come and go through his life and that [Anakin] cannot hold onto things, which is a basic Jedi philosophy that he isn’t willing to accept emotionally and the reason that is because he was raised by his mother rather than the Jedi. If he’d have been taken in his first years and started to study to be a Jedi, he wouldn’t have this particular connection as strong as it is and he’d have been trained to love people but not to become attached to them."

I think its safer to assume that Filoni, being as big of an EU as he is, got a lot of ideas and interpretations from it, where lots of novels did raise questions about the Jedi because Lucas did not effectively convey what he was trying to say. Unless Lucas changed his mind on the topic of course, which with his history is completely possible, in which case I digress and will stand corrected.

I completely agree with you about the films and what they show, which is why I try to separate what Lucas said and understand it because it shows he didn’t do as good a job as he should have. It is easier for me to accept the idea that Lucas wanted the plot and story to show one thing, but the result was not what he wanted and its too late to try to fix it. The Jedi come off as a weird group who try to isolate themselves, seem to dismiss emotion, etc. and we get not clear reasons why, which makes us wonder why Anakin’s supposed love for his mother and Padme is wrong.

Also, Lucas’ idea of Attachment is not a bond nor is it love. It is purely greed, greed formed around people. These quotes sum it up well:

“Try not to confuse attachment with love. Attachment is about fear and dependency, and has more to do with love of self than love of another. Love without attachment is the purest love because it isn’t about what others can give you because you’re empty. It is about what you can give others because you’re already full.” — Yasmin Mogahed

“The problem is always that we mistake the idea of love for attachment. You know, we imagine that the grasping and clinging that we have in our relationships shows that we love. Whereas actually it is just attachment, which causes pain. You know, because the more we grasp the more we are afraid to lose, then if we do lose, then of course then of course we are going to suffer.

Attachment says: I love you, therefore I want you to make me happy. And genuine love says: I love you, therefore I want you to be happy. If that includes me, great, if it doesn’t include me, I just want your happiness. And so, it’s a very different feeling. You know, attachment, it’s like holding very tight. But genuine love is like holding very gently, nurturing, but allowing things to flow, not to be held tightly. The more tight we hold on to others, the more we will suffer." - Tenzin Palmo Jetsunma

So yeah, Lucas also failed to make it clear what exactly attachment was, because the only character we see in situations with family and a significant other is with Anakin, who also happens to be the one with attachments the films/Jedi are shunning.

To make it clear, I am a prequel fan. I grew up with them. This particular issue is the one flaw I find in these films and to me its a pretty big one because 1. I like knowing what storytellers want to do with their stories and 2. Because, as I’ve said, I think Lucas failed to deliver this point, and at the end of the day the general consensus and understanding of an art by the audience becomes the more important part.

I think Lucas did fail to deliver his points clearly. His story, the deep stuff, is too subtle. It is there, but you have to watch it several times and read about what he was trying to do, and some you don’t get unless you watch all 6 movies up to that point. I feel that the important point is similar to what you say. Attachment of the sort Anakin had is bad. But I think it is also clear that the Jedi, rather than teach how to have good relationships, just said not to have any. To totally avoid the temptation. I think that shows a failing in their teachings. And it is unfortunate that a significant deleted scene in TLJ repeats this idea as Luke trains Rey. But he makes it about the nature being intertwined with the Force. Anakin didn’t get this lesson. Luke did. And by get I don’t mean he wasn’t taught it. We don’t get to see Anakin’s training so we don’t know. But he didn’t learn it. A proper response to the though of Padme dying in childbirth would be that he would do what he could to prevent it, but if that was her fate then life goes on. Instead Anakin is clinging to her and it destroys him.

One thing I’ve found amusing is that Lucas has said that the force is not like yin/yang, but yet everything he has done with it is very much like the yin/yang concept. Even his talk of bringing balance to the force. So a lot of what Lucas says has to be taken with a grain of salt. I feel he lives in the world of “a certain point of view”. Sometimes I think some of our heated discussions are because some of us see through what he says to what he means and some of us take him as what he says is what he means.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I think this is a very valid point of view that I tend to agree with. I’m sure people will chime in arguing which interpretation is the right one, and it may be right, but it definitely feels like it has been muddled, arguably by Lucas himself as time went on.

But I personally think the ambiguity feeds into the Force’s religious connotations in-universe pretty nicely, since religions have fought wars over which interpretation is right, with either side claiming theirs is the Truth.

Author
Time

of_Kaiburr_and_Whills said:

Want to add to my comment from earlier and explain some of my opinions behind this. The ultimate issue here is that Lucas thinks the Jedi are unquestionable ultimate heroes, but they did not come off that well for most of the audience, and I have to agree.

This is my biggest issue with the prequels, that Lucas did not really convey what he thought the Jedi to be very successfully. Yeah, we get a few lines of dialogue here and there, but nothing that really sticks with the audience unless they are thoroughly examining the films like we are. Of course even then there are still certain major plot points that don’t make the Jedi look too good. Anakin and his enslaved mother is a prime example. Why couldn’t the Jedi free Shmi? Why wasn’t Anakin allowed to see her for a decade?

Like yeah, you could try to explain that in different ways and try to reason it out, but on top of other scenes and plotlines, mixed in with a lack of clear details, its not looking too good. (And this is all coming from someone who grew up with prequels if that means anything.)

I tend to think the main culprit is the sheer amount of other things going on in the films. We really don’t get the Jedi explained as Lucas wanted them to. George Lucas is a talented guy, but I think the prequels would have been better off it were in two parts. One fully explaining the political issues, and another fully exploring the Jedi Order. Seriously, all of the ways Lucas describes the Jedi in the interviews I had brought up never come through that clearly in the prequels. Some things came through in The Clone Wars, but that doesn’t excuse much.

I used to try to reason out all of these things and try to see the prequel Jedi under the most positive light I could, but I always came to the issue that the films themselves don’t show these things. No matter how I tried to rationalize the Jedi’s decisions, and how much I listening to Lucas’ quotes that came out after the fact, they just aren’t present enough in the films.

Lastly, while Lucas is “Buddhist” and were influenced by extremely devoted Buddhist Monks, some consider the Jedi a bastardization of those ideas. So while he may have wanted to base some ideas off of Buddhism, him and his Jedi should never be used as a 1:1 metaphor for Buddhist people and monks. It is fiction over all, and many practices of the Jedi are certainly there for the story only.

Exactly.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

of_Kaiburr_and_Whills said:

The problem with that is what Lucas told Filoni. It wasn’t just Anakin’s need for power, it is how he was taught that led to that. The duel between Qui-gon and Darth Maul was the duel for Anakin’s fate. Had Qui-gon won, Anakin would have turned out different. Qui-gon is portrayed as a rebel against the Jedi council. Anakin needed an unorthodox teacher teacher like that. Instead he got the by the book teacher in Obi-wan (his comments to Qui-gon both point out how out of step with the council Qui-gon was and how in step he himself was). That plus Palpatine whispering in his ear for thirteen years.

Also, the feeling I get from the PT is that the Jedi are flawed. I stopped reading the EU materials long before the PT came out so I have no clue if they support or contradict the impression I get from the PT itself. The flaw in the Jedi teaching does not lie in their dogma. It lies in the tools they teach their younglings and padawans to resist the temptation of the dark side. What we get is that they don’t teach them anything. They teach dark side abstinence and avoidance. So when the dark side comes calling, they have no defenses to resist it. Fear lead to anger which leads to hate which leads to suffering. Anakin is too old at 9 and has some fear of leaving his mother. So instead of addressing his fear, the Council doesn’t want to teach him. Obi-wan has what Yoda taught him as a youngling and what Qui-gon taught him as a padawan, but we clearly see that Anakin never loses his fear of losing the ones he cares about. There is this wonderful meme someone made of Grogu long after Din Djarin was gone that sums up what Anakin needed. It is not the attachment that is the problem, it is the fear of losing the attachment. Everyone dies so a properly trained Jedi must be prepared to accept the loss and carry on. If you don’t fear the loss, an attachment cannot lead to the dark side. One simple tool, though probably a hard lesson. So I’ve always felt the flaws in the Jedi teachings were there in the films without need to refer to an outside source. Though what Filoni had to say was very enlightening.

I’d argue that we don’t actually know Lucas told that to Filoni. (This is all my opinions and speculation of course.) Because yeah, Filoni said it and he worked with Lucas, but he’s his own person with his own ideas just like Gary Kurtz and Lawrence Kasdan were. Add that to the fact that everything Lucas has said, which I gave some examples of earlier, is in contradiction with what Filoni said, I genuinely cannot believe Filoni got those ideas from Lucas.

“The fact that everything must change and that things come and go through his life and that [Anakin] cannot hold onto things, which is a basic Jedi philosophy that he isn’t willing to accept emotionally and the reason that is because he was raised by his mother rather than the Jedi. If he’d have been taken in his first years and started to study to be a Jedi, he wouldn’t have this particular connection as strong as it is and he’d have been trained to love people but not to become attached to them."

I think its safer to assume that Filoni, being as big of an EU as he is, got a lot of ideas and interpretations from it, where lots of novels did raise questions about the Jedi because Lucas did not effectively convey what he was trying to say. Unless Lucas changed his mind on the topic of course, which with his history is completely possible, in which case I digress and will stand corrected.

I completely agree with you about the films and what they show, which is why I try to separate what Lucas said and understand it because it shows he didn’t do as good a job as he should have. It is easier for me to accept the idea that Lucas wanted the plot and story to show one thing, but the result was not what he wanted and its too late to try to fix it. The Jedi come off as a weird group who try to isolate themselves, seem to dismiss emotion, etc. and we get not clear reasons why, which makes us wonder why Anakin’s supposed love for his mother and Padme is wrong.

Also, Lucas’ idea of Attachment is not a bond nor is it love. It is purely greed, greed formed around people. These quotes sum it up well:

“Try not to confuse attachment with love. Attachment is about fear and dependency, and has more to do with love of self than love of another. Love without attachment is the purest love because it isn’t about what others can give you because you’re empty. It is about what you can give others because you’re already full.” — Yasmin Mogahed

“The problem is always that we mistake the idea of love for attachment. You know, we imagine that the grasping and clinging that we have in our relationships shows that we love. Whereas actually it is just attachment, which causes pain. You know, because the more we grasp the more we are afraid to lose, then if we do lose, then of course then of course we are going to suffer.

Attachment says: I love you, therefore I want you to make me happy. And genuine love says: I love you, therefore I want you to be happy. If that includes me, great, if it doesn’t include me, I just want your happiness. And so, it’s a very different feeling. You know, attachment, it’s like holding very tight. But genuine love is like holding very gently, nurturing, but allowing things to flow, not to be held tightly. The more tight we hold on to others, the more we will suffer." - Tenzin Palmo Jetsunma

So yeah, Lucas also failed to make it clear what exactly attachment was, because the only character we see in situations with family and a significant other is with Anakin, who also happens to be the one with attachments the films/Jedi are shunning.

To make it clear, I am a prequel fan. I grew up with them. This particular issue is the one flaw I find in these films and to me its a pretty big one because 1. I like knowing what storytellers want to do with their stories and 2. Because, as I’ve said, I think Lucas failed to deliver this point, and at the end of the day the general consensus and understanding of an art by the audience becomes the more important part.

I think Lucas did fail to deliver his points clearly. His story, the deep stuff, is too subtle. It is there, but you have to watch it several times and read about what he was trying to do, and some you don’t get unless you watch all 6 movies up to that point. I feel that the important point is similar to what you say. Attachment of the sort Anakin had is bad. But I think it is also clear that the Jedi, rather than teach how to have good relationships, just said not to have any. To totally avoid the temptation. I think that shows a failing in their teachings. And it is unfortunate that a significant deleted scene in TLJ repeats this idea as Luke trains Rey. But he makes it about the nature being intertwined with the Force. Anakin didn’t get this lesson. Luke did. And by get I don’t mean he wasn’t taught it. We don’t get to see Anakin’s training so we don’t know. But he didn’t learn it. A proper response to the though of Padme dying in childbirth would be that he would do what he could to prevent it, but if that was her fate then life goes on. Instead Anakin is clinging to her and it destroys him.

One thing I’ve found amusing is that Lucas has said that the force is not like yin/yang, but yet everything he has done with it is very much like the yin/yang concept. Even his talk of bringing balance to the force. So a lot of what Lucas says has to be taken with a grain of salt. I feel he lives in the world of “a certain point of view”. Sometimes I think some of our heated discussions are because some of us see through what he says to what he means and some of us take him as what he says is what he means.

You don’t have to be a Jedi though. No one has to. To be a Jedi is a very specific commitment, just like being a monk is. Only a small fraction of Christians or Buddhists become monks or nuns. It’s even more important for them to have restraints than real life monks because they have insane levels of power and they’re a branch of both the government and the military. Note - I do not agree with the Jedi being depicted this way and I infinitely prefer the era before the prequels when Jedi openly had lovers, marriages, and children.

On a personal level, in my personal faith, marriage is a good thing including for clergy. However, we do have full time missionaries with similar commitments.
But going off of what Lucas was going for, it’s perfectly reasonable for monks to exist. For people that aren’t inherently suspicious of religion anyway.

As for Yin and Yang, that’s another thing that’s conveyed poorly, as that’s not actually what Balance in the Force means, but the very wording of “Balance in the Force” confuses people and leads them in some really silly directions. (You need equal good and evil, light side is about “lack of emotion” and dark side is about emotion, etc.)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

the Jedi, rather than teach how to have good relationships, just said not to have any.

Exactly, and that’s the main problem I have with the Prequel Jedi. Instead of teaching how to control attachment they taught to avoid it directly, which is stupid and not rational at all. Like it or not, attachment is perfectly human and natural, and depriving yourself of attachment is not healthy. It’s like depriving yourself of sex, you can do it for a certain period of time, but sooner or later you will not resist and, like a pressure cooker, you will end up exploding and doing the most pervert stuff ever. Everything that happened with Anakin could have been avoided if the Jedi had practiced a more pragmatic and realistic philosophy, and if instead of teaching to completely avoid attachment they had taught to control it. That’s why I love the New Jedi Order created by Luke in Legends. It corrected the errors of the Old Order, understood what the problem of the old dogma was and solved it in the best possible way, that is, by teaching the Jedi how to have good relationships, indeed. George’s view of avoiding attachment at all costs is extremist, not rational and psychologically damaging, and I can’t believe there are people who unironically agree with him on this. As in all things, also attachment needs to be controlled, It needs balance. Wait… BALANCE? Mmmhhh… Doesn’t it remind you of something? What if this is the key to the balance of which the Prophecy talks about? What if this is the balance Anakin was destined to bring through his life and the teachings that the new Jedi have drawn from it? Think about it.

«This is where the fun begins!»
(Anakin Skywalker)

Author
Time

I think this is a very valid point of view that I tend to agree with. I’m sure people will chime in arguing which interpretation is the right one, and it may be right, but it definitely feels like it has been muddled, arguably by Lucas himself as time went on.

But I personally think the ambiguity feeds into the Force’s religious connotations in-universe pretty nicely, since religions have fought wars over which interpretation is right, with either side claiming theirs is the Truth.

Very good point. For better or for worse, and like a real religion, the Force and the Jedi have so many different interpretations.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

of_Kaiburr_and_Whills said:

I think this is a very valid point of view that I tend to agree with. I’m sure people will chime in arguing which interpretation is the right one, and it may be right, but it definitely feels like it has been muddled, arguably by Lucas himself as time went on.

But I personally think the ambiguity feeds into the Force’s religious connotations in-universe pretty nicely, since religions have fought wars over which interpretation is right, with either side claiming theirs is the Truth.

Very good point. For better or for worse, and like a real religion, the Force and the Jedi have so many different interpretations.

Somewhat of an aside, but I always felt it was a missed opportunity that multiple Jedi sects/schools/denominations weren’t much of a thing. Yes, the EU did have Corellian Jedi, gray Jedi, etc., but for the most part, the Jedi were treated like a monolithic whole.

90% blue, 10% pink.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I think the idea of ​​the Jedi not being perfect came from Lucas the EU showed two Jedi falling to the Dark Side before the Prequels Exar Kun and Ulic Qel Droma but i never saw a negative portrayal of the Jedi in those comics

Author
Time

In fact EU material written prior to the prequels frequently had Jedi falling in love, getting married and starting families, in addition to there being no age restriction to joining the Jedi order and we even had some Jedi taking more than one apprentice at a time.

Author
Time

fmalover said:

In fact EU material written prior to the prequels frequently had Jedi falling in love, getting married and starting families, in addition to there being no age restriction to joining the Jedi order and we even had some Jedi taking more than one apprentice at a time.

I think that is the version of the Jedi from older times. I think Lucas was deliberately layering in some things he might have observed from the older stodgy religions to make the PT Jedi a bit off. At their core they are still the same, but they are operating under stricter rules and some Jedi chafe at those rules, like Qui-gon Jinn. I think that the minor schism between Qui-gon and the council is Lucas showing us that the current Jedi order has imposed additional limits on itself. I think this is further illustrated in Anakin’s fall. I think this is shown in the films and I think it is reinforced by what Dave Filoni said that Lucas told him about the significance of Qui-gon’s death. Qui-gon is the master Anakin needed. He would have been the chosen one and would have brought balance to the force without the destruction that resulted. But he got Obi-wan. A perfectly capable master for any regular student, but not the master that Anakin needed because Obi-wan followed the council (and was on the council). Lucas was playing the story overly subtle in the PT and there is a lot that you can dig out that isn’t immediately obvious but is there in multiple places. I think the add campaign for AOTC partly shows this with the rules for being a Jedi that they used that Anakin obviously had problems following. Those rules, as they were in the add campaign (print and trailers) weren’t in the film, but are clearly part of the story. In the film we just see Anakin chafing at several rules and reference to attachments vs. love.

Author
Time

Yes, Qui-Gon would have been a better master to Anakin, as he was a lot more laid back than the average Jedi, whereas Obi-Wan was very by-the-book.