What do you think of The Prequel Trilogy? A general discussion. — Page 19

Fan_edit_fan said:

Yeah, Lucas’ spin on Vader even works for his weird midiclorian fixation. It’s like “Well he lost his arms and legs,so there’s not enough midiclorians running through his body now…so he’s less powerful”. Which isn’t great at all.

It actually doesn’t make sense because according to TPM sensitivity is determined by how much you have per cell. Every cell that remains is still just as connected to the force. By the logic to spite Vader, Yoda should be the least powerful Jedi on the Council.

I actually think that Ep 2&3 Obi-Wan and Padme are good characters, with the only real blemishes being some of their interactions (or lack thereof) with Anakin, which is due to poor writing and plotting. On paper and in certain scenes, I can see how Anakin and Padme are actually compatible (when you don’t have him admit to killing Tusken kids). But in TPM, Obi-Wan is sidelined and besides a couple one liners and exposition is kinda a prick, and Padme acts like she overdosed on Xanax 90% of the time. I think that’s partially why I find TPM the most dull.

His explanation for Vader losing power

I’ve never heard any such thing in the movies or even EU. Only from fans powerscaling by saying he lost midichlorians in his limbs.

I never thought I’d say this, but the prequels have grown on my quite a bit, and I like them better than the sequels now.

Rogue One and Andor have also grown on me, whereas all the other Disney films/ shows have gotten worse for me over time.

The OT is still just as good as it’s always been.

Bit of a hot take, I’ve never cared for Duel of the Fates (the fight itself not the music). It’s way too overstimulating for my ADHD ass, half the time I can’t follow what’s going on. The character work is too barebones for me to care.

My favorite duels are Luke Skywalker vs. Darth Vader from ESB and ROTJ, a great balance between ferocious but not batshit insane choreography with great character work.

I enjoy the two final duels in ROTS to a degree, but at the same time am miffed at how the Anakin vs. Obi-Wan duel, among may other prequel elements, serves to retroactively make OT Vader look weak when he was intended to be a powerful masterful warrior (they had him be the only one to wield a saber with one hand for a reason). I also think they need to be toned down too.

The AOTC duels feel really awkward and stilted. It’s not as bad as Palpatine vs. Mace Windu, but it’s clear they’re trying to use a stunt double for Christopher Lee as little as possible, resulting in all of these weird janky cuts, and the way they move when dueling feels like they got a stick up their ass.

G&G-Fan said:

Bit of a hot take, I’ve never cared for Duel of the Fates (the fight itself not the music). It’s way too overstimulating for my ADHD ass, half the time I can’t follow what’s going on. The character work is too barebones for me to care.

My favorite duels are Luke Skywalker vs. Darth Vader from ESB and ROTJ, a great balance between ferocious but not batshit insane choreography with great character work.

I enjoy the two final duels in ROTS to a degree, but at the same time am miffed at how the Anakin vs. Obi-Wan duel, among may other prequel elements, serves to retroactively make OT Vader look weak when he was intended to be a powerful masterful warrior (they had him be the only one to wield a saber with one hand for a reason). I also think they need to be toned down too.

I agree that the PT duels (especially duel of the fates) are still overrated.

Channel72 said:

Regarding Vader and the negative portrayal of prosthetics/cybernetics, I think this is more like a visual metaphor for losing one’s humanity. In a separate conversation I was having in the OT section with ZkinandBonez, we were talking about how Star Wars is to some extent written as a timeless piece of mythology. If it weren’t set in some psuedo-futuristic space civilization, but instead set in like, a Lord of the Rings type high-fantasy environment, Vader would be something like a “Ring Wraith” or Gollum or some kind of decrepid yet powerful being, whose loss of humanity and descent into evil is symbolized by some kind of physical deterioration or dependency on dark magic. Vader’s cybernetic suit and iron lung serve a similar function, as a visual representation of a formerly good person who became evil. The cybernetics was simply a handy visual metaphor suggested by the sci-fi setting.

There’s also buried underneath all of this a very Christian theme of a “deal with the Devil” type thing, where achieving great powers of darkness comes with a very severe price of physical deterioration. Lucas implemented this idea very literally with having Vader fall into lava after embracing the Dark Side. The Emperor also appears physically deformed, presumably because he’s been screwing around with Dark Side powers for so long.

However, I don’t completely agree with this interpretation. I think it’s partially true, but Vader’s cybernetic suit also serves as a manifestation of a very modern fear about technology consuming our humanity (whatever that means in practice). This is a running theme in Star Wars, where reliance (or over-reliance) on technology is considered a bad thing, which is why Luke has to switch off his X-Wing targeting computer before pulling off the impossible shot, and a primitive Ewok tribe is able to defeat the technologically advanced Imperial troops.

I agree with this take. I don’t have a problem with, and in fact revel in, cybernetics being used to make Darth Vader scarier and more monstrous, because again, it’s about the circumstance. Vader’s mask looks like a skull and overall he has in appearance similar to the Ring Wraith’s (love the comparison). However, Luke and Lobot are cyborgs and are not evil for it. I’m a big fan of mythological motifs too. I eat up the Heaven and Hell imagery in ESB.

Channel72 said:

Regardless, the idea that the cybernetics somehow makes Vader less powerful is really an entirely off-screen idea that isn’t really apparent in any of the films themselves. If I recall correctly, the first time I even heard this idea was in the context of trying to reconcile the highly kinetic, acrobatic, fast-paced lightsaber duels in the Prequels, with Vader’s slow, sometimes almost clumsy fighting style in the OT. In other words, the idea that cybernetics makes Vader less powerful probably emerged from out-of-Universe inconsistencies in choreography and special effects between the two Trilogies.

This is true as well. Technically you’d only know through Lucas quotes, though you could really say the same about most of the power scaling in Star Wars; even with Disney having made Vader extremely powerful again (some sources even saying or implying superior raw power over the Emperor), you’d only really know through supplemental material. I just get annoyed by how it’s hard to talk about Vader, even in just the context of the new Canon, without someone shoving Prequel era Lucas quotes in my face and chastising me for preferring Vader’s Canon interpretation because “Lucas is the creator therefore you must always agree with him”. Especially when this idea of making Vader appear weak is a PT invention; Lucas was more then willing to indulge in Vader glazing in the OT era.

It really annoys me that Lucas says that the Vader vs. Ben duel is the way it is because it’s a fight between “an old man and a cyborg” and people go with it. First, the script literally describes them as seasoned warriors and the duel as powerful, not to mention all of the scenes that are designed to make Vader look strong. Second, the ESB and ROTJ duels disagree. Third, I think Dooku, Yoda, and Grievous would have something to say about that.

While the films don’t explicitly state that Vader’s suit made him weaker compared to his younger self, the idea isn’t hard to believe.

After his battle on Mustafar, Vader suffered catastrophic injuries — losing his arms, legs, and being severely burned. In Revenge of the Sith, we see that the process of placing him into the suit involved a highly invasive and complex surgical procedure. Furthermore, when Vader first stands up, we can clearly see that he struggles with basic movement and has difficulty walking. This strongly suggests that the suit restricts his mobility, preventing him from being as agile or physically capable as he was before the suit. Vader’s menacing appearance in the suit may give the impression that he is all-powerful, but this doesn’t necessarily mean he’s the most dominant force in the galaxy. Often, things that appear imposing or invincible aren’t as indestructible as they seem, and Vader’s intimidating presence doesn’t automatically equate to unparalleled strength.

I’ve never had an issue with the fact that the duel between Vader and Obi-Wan in A New Hope feels completely different from their fight on Mustafar. I’ve always chalked it up to external factors, mainly the limitations of special effects at the time, rather than trying to find an in-universe explanation for the contrast between the two duels. The difference never bothered me because I understood it was more about the practical constraints of filmmaking, rather than something that needed to be justified within the story itself.

It’s not a matter of it being “hard to believe”. I don’t like it. You can’t take a character ppl love, take away from some of what they loved about him and expect ppl to be cool with it.

I love Darth Vader, and he doesn’t have to be a god, and shouldn’t, but he should still be powerful.
I find Vader and Palpatine’s dynamic in Canon more fascinating, because his hold over Vader is actually more psychological and built on contingencies. Also, while Vader has more raw power, Sidious is more into dark side sorcery.
It fits both character’s personalities and balances their dynamic more. Vader is the brutal warrior enforcer, the Emperor is the manipulative sorcerer politician.
That’s mostly why I love the Emperor almost just as much as Vader; he’s evil yet in opposite to Vader in many ways. He’s his perfect compliment.
Anyway, Vader is allowed to have some cards on the table. So much so that Vader actually has some bartering power with Palpatine. Point being, Vader shouldn’t be wimpy.

The suit hardly restricts mobility in the OT. He does a big jump in ESB and shows some agility in dueling in ESB and ROTJ. The reason he walks that way in ROTS is because he was just put in the suit and went through surgery.
And sure, he’s not a super lean, agile fighter, but Vader makes up for it with the ferocity and power of his strikes. His suit gives him monstrously superhuman strength, seen in ANH’s introduction.
He is overwhelming and unrelenting. You could damage his suit, cut off a limb, destroy his respirator and he’ll just keep going (the Obi-Wan show didn’t understand this). ROTJ is an exception since he let go of the dark side.
Alongside Episodes 5&6, SC 38 I feel like perfectly showcases Vader’s fighting style, as does his fight with Cere in Jedi Survivor.

Speaking of differentiating and balancing the Sith Lords, each one should’ve had a unique power. Vader’s could be force choke (as in, making that only Vader’s thing) or something else that matches his cold brutal nature. Palpatine’s should be the lightning, it’s perfect for him. Wicked and twisted like a dark wizard. Dooku should be something Dracula-like, perhaps a vampiric “sucking of force power” or something. Maul should be something savage and animalistic, taking inspiration from big cats.

The “dark side” as a blatantly degradative drug is just kind of a boring read IMO. If The Force is supposed to be “everything” then the nuances of the human experience should be given room to work inside the framework. Agency and choice is a far more compelling engine to drive a story than mythological convention. It’s part of what makes ROTJ work for me; it wasn’t “too late.” It denies this idea weight.

Whether or not it accidentally stumbles into it, the prequels do enough to portray that rigid understanding of the Force as flawed pedagogy too - more than truth about nature. For all the convoluted vagueness about the galactic polity and what it’s meant to analogize, the denial of anything innocuous possibly leading to “the dark” (for a child) works too well in a decade not far removed from satanic panic and at the height of Catholic church scandal. I know not everyone agrees, but I do think that stuff is interesting. The Wire is a good show, and better than Lord of the Rings. (/int. absurd)

The prequels get so close to finding a good synthesis, but ultimately fail by retreating into Anakin’s wacky yellow-eyes corruption in ROTS’ third act. It just doesn’t leave much genuine room for feelings of remorse or guilt in The Force, and make Anakin/Vader feel less real.

NFBisms said:

The “dark side” as a blatantly degradative drug is just kind of a boring read IMO. If The Force is to supposed to be “everything” then the nuances of the human experience should be given room to work inside the framework. Agency and choice is a far more compelling engine to drive a story than mythological convention. It’s part of what makes ROTJ work for me; it wasn’t “too late.” It denies this idea weight.

Addiction is still based on choices, as someone prone to it due to my ADHD.
House MD is an excellent show with a nuanced and compelling portrayal of addiction and how one should deal with chronic pain, physically and mentally. House has his leg pain, but chooses to overdose on Vicodin, chooses to push people away, even when given alternatives.

It’s Vader’s choice to be evil and use the dark side, as it’s his choice to redeem himself. He’s not being mind-controlled, he has agency. I dislike interpretations that say otherwise. The overuse of victimizing the Sith is annoying to me.

NFBisms said:

Whether or not it accidentally stumbles into it, the prequels do enough to portray that rigid understanding of the Force as flawed pedagogy too - more than truth about nature. For all the convoluted vagueness about the galactic polity and what it’s meant to analogize, the denial of anything innocuous possibly leading to “the dark” (for a child) works too well in a decade not far removed from satanic panic and at the height of Catholic church scandal. I know not everyone agrees, but I do think that stuff is interesting. The Wire is a good show, and better than Lord of the Rings.

The prequels get so close to finding a good synthesis, but ultimately fail by retreating into Anakin’s wacky yellow-eyes corruption in ROTS’ third act. It just doesn’t leave much genuine room for feelings of remorse or guilt in The Force, and make Anakin/Vader feel less real.

“The Jedi made Anakin repress his emotions until he exploded”, is an interpretation I disagree with, as I see it as victimizing Vader too much. In the OT, we’re told that he was seduced by the dark side. He made a choice. Vader is a commanding presence who boasts his power in every other scene. He’s a tyrannical egomaniac who revels in control, his cold hardened personality forged to hide the soft, sentimental man deeply repressed within (as we see in his death scene).

A backstory fitting for Vader is one like Walter White or Michael Corleone, men who dipped into the criminal world for sympathetic and understandable reasons, only to turn into monsters, their initial motivations lined with pride and a need for control.
I very recently rewatched The Godfather Parts 1&2, and it’s obvious inspiration was drawn from them for the PT, even down to major plot points, so it’s not unfair to compare Anakin/Vader to Michael.
The Naboo romance parallels Sicily from Part 1, the slaughter of the separatists leaders parallels the Baptism sequence. The PT misses a lot of the nuance of what makes Michael work. They shouldn’t be exactly alike, but there’s lessons to be learned.
Such as the valid point you made: Anakin shows too little internal struggle with his dark deeds. We see this beautifully with Michael, his dipping in Satan’s works draining his soul to the point where he just goes cold. We see him nervous in the bathroom looking for the planted gun, his contemplative face before he kills Sollozzo and McClusky.

Making the Jedi corrupt means there’s no good role model. That’s the role Obi-Wan and Yoda have in the OT; they’re the good mentors leading Luke to the enlightened path. You need that in a story that, while for everyone, children should be able to follow, unlike The Godfather, clearly for adults.

I pretty much agree with you. I don’t want to be boxed in with the perspective you’re actually responding to.

my pov

I’m not anti-Christian, truly, I’m really not trying to be boxed in to these perspectives. There is room to do all of the stuff you all are talking about thematically and still have dialectical discussions about its world. Like you just said about Han and Andor.

The Jedi can be right - they are! But pedagogy is not a question of content.

Also The Wire comparison was me doing an apples to oranges thing. I’m saying I like that kind of thing. It’s not worse than mythology to me. It has its own audience, the prequels in whatever small way have things that work better in that lens.

like, I’m not rejecting the story of Star Wars guys, but there’s emergent stuff in the cracks worth pointing out

G&G-Fan said:

It’s not a matter of it being “hard to believe”. I don’t like it. You can’t take a character ppl love, take away from some of what they loved about him and expect ppl to be cool with it.

I completely understand where you are coming from, and I respect your love for the way Darth Vader is portrayed in the Original Trilogy. However, I think it is unrealistic to expect him to be as agile as he was before he got the suit, especially after everything that happened to him in Revenge of the Sith. As I have already said, the guy had both of his legs and one of his arms cut off, and then he was left to burn alive for hours before Palpatine arrived on Mustafar to save what little was left of him. After going through all that, it wouldn’t make sense for him to move with the same speed or agility. However, his physical limitations are part of what makes him so intimidating, at least in my opinion. The fact that he can still fight with such ferocity despite those injuries shows how powerful he really is. Even though his mobility has been reduced compared to his younger self, he has learned to adapt. He is no longer the fast, acrobatic duelist he was as Anakin, but now he is this unstoppable force who fights with pure power and precision. His strikes are heavy and deliberate, and that makes him terrifying in a different way. So, I think that his reduced mobility actually makes him even more intimidating. And let’s be honest, just looking at the suit, it is clear that it is heavy and uncomfortable. It is not the kind of thing anyone would want to live inside, much less fight in. You can tell right away that it would restrict his movements. But that only adds to the character in my opinion, because despite the fact that the suit looks cumbersome, Vader still manages to dominate his enemies. It is part of what makes him so menacing — he is pushing through immense physical pain and limitations, yet he is still one of the most dangerous beings in the galaxy. That’s what makes him powerful, even if he is not as agile as he once was.

Making the Jedi corrupt means there’s no good role model. That’s the role Obi-Wan and Yoda have in the OT; they’re the good mentors leading Luke to the enlightened path. You need that in a story that, while for everyone, children should be able to follow, unlike The Godfather, clearly for adults.

I understand your perspective, but I don’t think the Jedi need to be perfect to be role models. In fact, showing their flaws makes the story more relatable. The idea that “everything was perfect until Anakin and Palpatine destroyed it all” is way too simplistic, because life is not that black and white. People and institutions, even well-meaning ones like the Jedi, can make mistakes, and those mistakes can have serious consequences. A Republic that has lasted for thousands of years does not collapse simply because a guy with a bad childhood and an evil sorcerer decide to team up. Things are not that simple, and it is wrong to portray them so simplistically. There is a reason why people these days don’t appreciate simple fairy tales as much as they used to, and that’s because real life doesn’t work like fairy tales, and people don’t like simplistic stories anymore. There is a difference between trying to be positive and spread a good message and writing unrealistic stories where the good guys are perfect and the bad guys are basically demons with no soul. Furthermore, what makes Obi-Wan and Yoda compelling mentors is not that they are flawless, but that they learn from their failures. They are still guiding Luke toward a better path despite the mistakes the Jedi Order made in the past.

Spartacus01 said:

I completely understand where you are coming from, and I respect your love for the way Darth Vader is portrayed in the Original Trilogy. However, I think it is unrealistic to expect him to be as agile as he was before he got the suit, especially after everything that happened to him in Revenge of the Sith. As I have already said, the guy had both of his legs and one of his arms cut off, and then he was left to burn alive for hours before Palpatine arrived on Mustafar to save what little was left of him. After going through all that, it wouldn’t make sense for him to move with the same speed or agility. However, his physical limitations are part of what makes him so intimidating, at least in my opinion. The fact that he can still fight with such ferocity despite those injuries shows how powerful he really is. Even though his mobility has been reduced compared to his younger self, he has learned to adapt. He is no longer the fast, acrobatic duelist he was as Anakin, but now he is this unstoppable force who fights with pure power and precision. His strikes are heavy and deliberate, and that makes him terrifying in a different way. So, I think that his reduced mobility actually makes him even more intimidating. And let’s be honest, just looking at the suit, it is clear that it is heavy and uncomfortable. It is not the kind of thing anyone would want to live inside, much less fight in. You can tell right away that it would restrict his movements. But that only adds to the character in my opinion, because despite the fact that the suit looks cumbersome, Vader still manages to dominate his enemies. It is part of what makes him so menacing — he is pushing through immense physical pain and limitations, yet he is still one of the most dangerous beings in the galaxy. That’s what makes him powerful, even if he is not as agile as he once was.

We’re actually agreeing here, because I said practically the same thing about Darth Vader’s fighting style. The fights I brought up, both OT and otherwise, show exactly what you’re describing: a less agile but powerful, heavy, deliberate fighter. I don’t think he’s as immobile as it seems some ppl will say, but his main strength is his brutal, overwhelming, unrelenting nature…

I’m not sure I’m entirely behind the idea of Vader’s suit being uncomfortable and painful in-universe. We know in Canon that Vader modifies his suit himself and in Lords of the Sith, it’s separation of him from the physical realm allows him to focus and strengthen his relationship to the Force. But I’m cool with the idea of the suit behind painful in the context you described it in, and if the idea is it’s deliberate on his end to get more high on the dark side, not something forced onto him.

Spartacus01 said:

I understand your perspective, but I don’t think the Jedi need to be perfect to be role models. In fact, showing their flaws makes the story more relatable. The idea that “everything was perfect until Anakin and Palpatine destroyed it all” is way too simplistic, because life is not that black and white. People and institutions, even well-meaning ones like the Jedi, can make mistakes, and those mistakes can have serious consequences. A Republic that has lasted for thousands of years does not collapse simply because a guy with a bad childhood and an evil sorcerer decide to team up. Things are not that simple, and it is wrong to portray them so simplistically. There is a reason why people these days don’t appreciate simple fairy tales as much as they used to, and that’s because real life doesn’t work like fairy tales, and people don’t like simplistic stories anymore. There is a difference between trying to be positive and spread a good message and writing unrealistic stories where the good guys are perfect and the bad guys are basically demons with no soul. Furthermore, what makes Obi-Wan and Yoda compelling mentors is not that they are flawless, but that they learn from their failures. They are still guiding Luke toward a better path despite the mistakes the Jedi Order made in the past.

Of course the good guys and bad guys should never be as one-dimensional as you describe. Taking the OT as an example, Luke, Han and Leia are protagonist heroes who are undeniably flawed (though I’m sure you weren’t referring to them). At the points in the narrative where Darth Vader is pure evil and Obi-Wan is pure good, there’s still dimension and nuances to their characterizations. Vader and Obi-Wan aren’t just evil and good respectively, they’re a particular flavor of evil and good. They still have traits, goals, views, and rudimentary backstories. This is understandable, they’re not the protagonists. As the movies go on, they’re given more depth as we learn more. Vader actually has deeply repressed vulnerability underneath his cold hardened personality. Obi-Wan lied to Luke and either actually failed Anakin or is too hard on himself. Yoda and the Emperor are the embodiment of good and evil, but even still, have character traits.

I don’t have a problem with the characterization for Obi-Wan and Yoda in the Prequels either, I take issue with the idea that the Jedi’s beliefs are corrupt and incorrect and putting so much blame on the Jedi for their tragic fate. Protagonist Jedi characters should be good people with flaws, but the religion is the enlightened path, and the flaws of the characters (understandable and human) strays from Jedi philosophy (like Luke’s). The one PT Jedi flaw Lucas agrees with, the participation in the war, is a departure from their philosophy (though his intent is that they’re involuntarily drafted). There’s also still a place for characters like Yoda, who should be all good, because his purpose in the narrative is to be the wise mentor. You don’t see people begging for Gandalf to be given a massive amount of depth.

People still love the OT as much as they did back then, same with say, Lord of the Rings. Morally simplistic stories are not an issue, as long as they have compelling characters, good pacing, and thematically powerful stories. The issue some had with the PT Jedi is that they found them unintentionally too rigid, apathetic, and dimwitted, which is mostly due to Lucas’ writing and directing. Fans decided to be good faith to the Prequels and ran with the idea that they’re actually supposed to be that way, exaggerating or interpreting flaws, to the point where the Filoni-verse has made it canon. Which is fine, if that’s your thing, I don’t agree with Lucas on everything either.

I should also note that the idea of a millennia old institution falling apart because of two evil dudes is partially a result of Lucas cramming the timeline. The implication of the OT, when calling the Jedi an ancient religion, is that they had been gradually becoming more sparse for awhile, likely due to external forces, and Vader and the Empire (mostly) sealed the deal. I don’t think the original idea was that the Jedi were at their height in Obi-Wan and Anakin’s time. Curiously, Lucas incorporated the idea of a deteriorating Republic into the PT, but not a deteriorating Jedi Order, until the clone war and Order 66 (Lucas is on record saying TPM is meant to represent the height of the Jedi Order). I can see why he would want to, but it has ramifications on the overall structure and continuity.

G&G-Fan said:

Of course the good guys and bad guys should never be as one-dimensional as you describe. Taking the OT as an example, Luke, Han and Leia are protagonist heroes who are undeniably flawed (though I’m sure you weren’t referring to them). At the points in the narrative where Darth Vader is pure evil and Obi-Wan is pure good, there’s still dimension and nuances to their characterizations. Vader and Obi-Wan aren’t just evil and good respectively, they’re a particular flavor of evil and good. They still have traits, goals, views, and rudimentary backstories. This is understandable, they’re not the protagonists. As the movies go on, they’re given more depth as we learn more. Vader actually has deeply repressed vulnerability underneath his cold hardened personality. Obi-Wan lied to Luke and either actually failed Anakin or is too hard on himself. Yoda and the Emperor are the embodiment of good and evil, but even still, have character traits.

I don’t have a problem with the characterization for Obi-Wan and Yoda in the Prequels either, I take issue with the idea that the Jedi’s beliefs are corrupt and incorrect and putting so much blame on the Jedi for their tragic fate. Protagonist Jedi characters should be good people with flaws, but the religion is the enlightened path, and the flaws of the characters (understandable and human) strays from Jedi philosophy (like Luke’s). The one PT Jedi flaw Lucas agrees with, the participation in the war, is a departure from their philosophy (though his intent is that they’re involuntarily drafted). There’s also still a place for characters like Yoda, who should be all good, because his purpose in the narrative is to be the wise mentor. You don’t see people begging for Gandalf to be given a massive amount of depth.

If a character is intended to be portrayed as a good person with flaws, then those flaws need to be properly shown, not overlooked. However, whenever you criticize Lucas’ portrayal of the Jedi in the Prequel Trilogy, it almost seems as though you expect every Jedi to be perfect. The problem is, if every Jedi is perfect, we are no longer talking about well-meaning individuals with flaws; we are talking about flawless people, which is an entirely different thing. For instance, hypocrisy can be considered a flaw, and if someone wanted to depict the Jedi as well-meaning but flawed individuals, it would be reasonable to portray some of the Jedi as hypocritical, at least when it comes to the Jedi Council. Yet, whenever someone suggests that the Council may have acted hypocritically, you tend to dismiss the idea outright, saying that you don’t like it. So, I believe you need to make a choice: either the Jedi are perfect, or they are not. If they are not, then their flaws must be recognized, and they need to have real consequences.

I understand that you don’t like the idea of portraying Anakin as a victim. However, the fact that he made his own choice does not mean that the Jedi didn’t play any role in his downfall. They were responsible for raising him and teaching him to control his emotions. And if they failed, it wasn’t solely because Anakin refused to listen, because there are many examples of individuals who come from challenging backgrounds and refused to listen at first, but who still managed to learn discipline and internalize good values. Yes, Anakin made his choice, and that cannot be denied, but portraying the Jedi Order as entirely blameless isn’t a realistic perspective either. Moreover, criticizing the Jedi Order is not an attack on their philosophy, but rather on the institution itself. The religion and its core principles are sound — no one is disputing that, not even many of those who criticize the Jedi. However, the institution, its rules, and its practices deserve to be examined and critiqued. This, again, has nothing to do with the core tenets of Jedi philosophy, such as controlling your emotions, living at peace with yourself, following the will of the Force and trying not to cause harm to anyone.

To give an example, the Expanded Universe often portrayed the Jedi as the good guys, while also highlighting their flaws. The EU authors were clear in their intent: while the fundamental beliefs of the Jedi religion were portrayed as correct, the institutionalized Jedi Order and some of the Jedi rules in place during the Prequel era were open to critique, like the ban on romantic relationships. In the old EU the authors were more inclined to make a distinction between healthy and unhealthy romantic relationships, suggesting that healthy romantic relationships were not impossible for a Jedi to maintain, while unhealthy ones — like Anakin and Padmé’s relationship — were wrong. This is an approach to the Jedi, their philosophy, and their rules that I agree with, as opposed to Lucas’ own interpretation.