of_Kaiburr_and_Whills

I don’t know how or why droids feel pain and emotion in the SW Universe; but speaking from a perspective of filmmaking, I am glad that they do.  The characters of the droids are much richer because of it.  However, it has to be handled realisticly.

Like to add to this and say that Droid pain is something I prefer Star Wars never explains. I like having it be one of those things that fans can ponder about since within the story it doesn’t need any more explanation other than “C-3PO, just like any human character, can and will be tortured if he upsets his new master.”

As for the shifts in tone within the film, I don’t think its that big a deal. The whole first act of Jedi is a bit bumpy in its execution, but I never found the tone to be an issue, at least not for me that is.

Kaweebo said:

It’s just a shame because we will never get a do-over. This show is the ‘definitive’ version of these events. The only way out is to ignore it even happened. I can’t help but be upset.

For what it’s worth there is a fairly decent Kenobi novel written by John Jackson Miller that tells a much smaller scaled story but still hits a lot of the grief and trauma Ben is dealing with.

Excellent stuff, I’m digging them.

Also, I love how much that Forces of Destiny cover looks like Darwyn Cooke’s art. Fantastic.

Well, 2022 now and yikes how that’s going. Averaging right under $5.00 in the States. At least these past couple of weeks its gone down a little bit.

1. Star Wars/A New Hope
2. Revenge of the Sith
3. The Empire Strikes Back
4. Return of the Jedi
5. Solo
6. The Clone Wars
7. The Phantom Menace
8. Attack of the Clones
9. Ewoks: The Battle for Endor
10. Rogue One
11. Ewoks: Caravan of Courage
12. The Last Jedi
13. The Rise of Skywalker
14. The Force Awakens

These shift around time to time of course. A New Hope and Revenge of the Sith are usually at the top though. This is just how I feel right now. In fact I’d even go to say in a lot of ways my #1-3 are all tied and #4-9 are tied.

Starkiller in The Force Unleashed II is in fact the real Starkiller, just with a bad case of amnesia. All the other clones of him are failed mutants, and other cloned Force-users in the EU were mad (Luuke for example), or had to transfer essence or whatnot. Besides, thematically I think it works better with Starkiller’s story about identity and I do believe it would have been revealed in the third game.

Yoda is from Kashyyyk. I came up with this when I was younger to explain Yoda’s good relationship with the Wookiees in Revenge of the Sith. I know The Clone Wars was going to give a reason for it in an unproduced arc, but I think its possible it could have worked out still. (Not that it needed an explanation of any kind, nor is my theory the only possibility of course, I just like clinging to the idea since I’ve had it for so long.)

The Academy Luke references in A New Hope and its deleted scenes was not the Imperial Academy, but rather just the Star Academy. Luke was either referring to the Academy founded on Tatooine, or one that was more of a galaxy-spanning institution. The Imperial Navy was known to sift through these Academies for promising students to lessen the amount they needed to train themselves.

“My film began with Vader taking on five Jedi at once and killing all of them, you know, so it established that he is the big Jedi killer. The Inquisitors are capturing them, but Vader is the big daddy who comes in and just lays waste to any Jedi all while hunting Kenobi.”

“In mine, Vader won the fight. They were fighting on this space station. It was falling apart in the atmosphere of this big planet and Obi-Wan basically fell off. Vader pushed him off and they separated. They didn’t get the chance to find Obi-Wan, basically. But what was going through Obi-Wan’s mind is the same thing which is, ‘My brother is truly dead. He’s gone. And while I absolve of that guilt because I didn’t kill him, Vader killed him, I’m still just devastated. I’m absolutely devastated.’”

“In mine, he really did believe that Kenobi was dead at the end, which was the thing that allowed him to finally let Kenobi go and focus on ruling the galaxy with an iron fist. Because it always seemed that in [A New Hope] he was shocked when he was like ‘I sense something, a presence I’ve not felt since…’ Why do you stop talking to yourself? It’s because you’re that shocked, you know?”

Sounds like a lot of missed opportunities.

I think I also prefer the standalone film format rather than series which are broken and up and much longer, so I may be biased in favor of Kenobi the “planned film” over Kenobi the “streaming service limited series.”

Either way, it’ll be another one of those things where what happened happened, and those like us who didn’t enjoy it just move on to other projects. (I’m trying to express my opinions and not be labeled a “hater” about anything. Internet discourse is weird.)

I’ve read the first three novels and first few issues of the Marvel comic run. So far it is fairly good. I love a lot the overall ideas going into it and absolutely love the aesthetic of everything. As for the novels themselves I’m a little conflicted because I certainly have enjoyed the novels enough to keep going but they have been far from my favorites. (The Rising Storm was my favorite of the three so far.)

The hatred this project is receiving is unhinged, which goes for a lot of new Star Wars. Its totally understandable that certain ideas and choices may not be for everyone which is fine of course, but the absolute sheer rage people have on online circles is a bit much. (I would argue for naysayers to reconsider on Geode, the way he’s written is quite funny.)

This is really interesting. I’d suggest reaching out to Pablo Hidalgo on Twitter. He tends to be very knowledgeable with stuff like this.

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.

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.

I think its pretty clear that to Lucas, the Jedi were the ultimate good guys, and that they are not inherently flawed, but do not always make the best decisions. The more flawed view of them comes from the EU.

"As the situation develops in the Clone Wars they are recruited into the army, and they become generals. They’re not generals. They don’t kill people. They don’t fight. They’re supposed to be ambassadors. There are a lot of Jedi that think that the Jedi sold out, that they should never have been in the army, but it’s a though call. It’s one of those conundrums, of which there’s a bunch of in my movies. You have to think it through. Are they going to stick by their moral rules and all be killed, which makes it irrelevant, or do they help save the Republic? They have good intentions, but they have been manipulated, which was their downfall.” — George Lucas

“The idea was to establish Jedi as what they were, which is sort of peacekeepers who moved through the galaxy to settle disputes. They aren’t policemen, they aren’t soldiers; they’re mafia dons. They come in and sit down with the two different sides and say, “Okay, now we’re going to settle this.”
A lot of people say, “What good is a lightsaber against a tank?” The Jedi weren’t meant to fight wars. That’s the big issue in the prequels. They got drafted into service, which is exactly what Palpatine wanted.” — George Lucas

When it comes to the Clone Wars, Lucas makes it clear in interviews that joining the war was not by their own will, but out of necessity to try to keep as much good and order as possible. They’ve also been drafted he says, and forced to fight, which aligns with the Vietnam draft that occurred during Lucas’ own youth.

As for their rules and beliefs? Lucas never intended for them to be wrong about anything like that, especially attachment. Lucas considers himself a Buddhist Methodist, and used Zen Buddhist Monks and their philosophies as the fundamental basis for the Jedi Order. One of those major ideas is forgoing attachments, which does not really mean the same in the Buddhist tradition as it means in the West.

“The message [of Attack of the Clones] is you can’t possess things. You can’t hold on to them. You have to accept change. You have to accept the fact that things transition. And so, as you try to hold on to things or you become afraid of – that you’re going to lose things, then you begin to crave the power to control those things. And then, you start to become greedy and then you turn into a bad person.” — George 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.
“But he become attached to his mother and he will become attached to Padme and these things are, for a Jedi, who needs to have a clear mind and not be influenced by threats to their attachments, a dangerous situation. And it feeds into fear of losing things, which feeds into greed, wanting to keep things, wanting to keep his possessions and things that he should be letting go of. His fear of losing her turns to anger at losing her, which ultimately turns to revenge in wiping out the village. The scene with the Tusken Raiders is the first scene that ultimately takes him on the road to the dark side. I mean he’s been prepping for this, but that’s the one where he’s sort of doing something that is completely inappropriate.
“He’s greedy in that he wants to keep his mother around, he’s greedy in that he wants to become more powerful in order to control things in order to keep the things around that he wants. There’s a lot of connections here with the beginning of him sliding into the dark side. [….]
“Because of that, and because he was unwilling to let go of his mother, because he was so attached to her, he committed this terrible revenge on the Tusken Raiders.” — George Lucas

“The Jedi are trained to let go. They’re trained from birth,” he continues, “They’re not supposed to form attachments. They can love people- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith. But they can’t form attachments.” — George Lucas

“The thing with Anakin is that he started out a great kid he was very compassionate, so the issue was how did he turn bad. How did he go to the dark side? He went to the dark side, Jedi aren’t supposed to have attachments. They can love people, they can do that, but they can’t attach, that’s the problem in the world of fear. Once you are attached to something then you become afraid of losing it. And when you become afraid of losing it, then you turn to the dark side, and you want to hold onto it, and that was Anakin’s issue. Ultimately, that he wanted to hold onto his wife who he knew, he had a premonition that she was going to die, he didn’t know how to stop it, so he went to the dark side. In mythology you go to Hades, and you talk to the devil, and the devil says ‘this is what you do’ and basically you sell your soul to the devil. When you do that, and you’re afraid and you’re on the dark side and you fall off the golden path of compassion because you are greedy, you want to hold on to something that you love and he didn’t do the right thing and as a result he turned bad.” — George Lucas

“The fact that everything must change and that things come and go through his life and that he can’t 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 year 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." — George Lucas

Now, whether Lucas did a good job conveying these ideas, or whether one agrees with these ideas, is another debate altogether. I do not believe that Lucas meant the Jedi to be seen as a flawed institution, though they sometimes made mistakes, and many Jedi were prone to arrogance just like any other person. Again, whether he did a good job conveying these ideas is up to debate, and though I like what Lucas was going for, I think it could certainly have been brought out better within the films themselves.

EU authors like Karen Traviss for example, were the ones that really started the idea that the Jedi Order was inherently flawed within official (albeit EU) stories. I’ve seen authors like John Jackson Miller, Karen Miller, and others continue with these ideas, though not as critically. Dave Filoni also has his famous analysis of The Phantom Menace, which I have always viewed as him seeing what he wanted to see with the prequels, and him interpreting them his own way. To make it clear: this is perfectly fine, I’m not arguing against it at all and again I see validity to it since the prequels leave a lot open to interpretation as any good art should. But when we are talking about what Lucas himself intended, and how he views the Jedi, I think its very important to make this distinction.