"Only the movies matter": well, that's stupid, because that hasn't been the definition of canon any time this millenium. Just about everything since April 2014 is canon except for Star Wars: The Old Republic, and before that, the tiers of canon (with G-canon on top) have existed since 2000.
Clinical: And again: if it's a function of the film rather than something that only Jedi do, then it reflects on either the film itself or the galaxy.
In the context of watching the films, it's not stupid. It reflects poorly on the film if I have to go and read a book to understand why a character behaves this way.
Could you imagine having to do this for Lord of the Rings, because we aren't given any reason to understand why Theoden would abandon Edoras? Or if all the scenes with Elrond's disapproval were missing and we had to read a comic for that?
As for the acting... nah. Anakin calls for the kind of caged-furnace rage that a Fassbender, Driver or Bale can provide, and Christensen falls way short, likely because of poor direction but also because he sadly lacks that gravitas. People talk about Kylo as a petulant adolescent and that's an element in his characterisation, but the rage he projects on Crait comes across as far less whiny and more credibly frightening than what we get after Anakin's massacre of the Tuskens. It's both overwrought and undercranked.
Luke is a whinny YA dude. Anakin's dialog doesn't come across as natural. It honestly comes across as "Anya with a bit more tact" - Anya's reason for being raised by wolves is that she spent a millenium not being in normal human society and only as a thin layer of actual teen-ish girl over than. What's Anakin's excuse? The Anakin of E2 could theoretically be credible if he wasn't following the Anakin of E1 who was raised by a mother and acts like a a kid who was socialized by real people. Anakin in E2 feels like his backstory was Tarzan rather than E1. How are you this bad at 'other people'?
Leaving aside acting/directing issues, the writing feels off too. It's like the quality difference between an Edutainment cartoon hero's sanitized speech and the very genuine 'kids talk like this' speech of the kids in Stranger Things.
In the context of watching the films, it's not stupid. It reflects poorly on the film if I have to go and read a book to understand why a character behaves this way.
Could you imagine having to do this for Lord of the Rings, because we aren't given any reason to understand why Theoden would abandon Edoras? Or if all the scenes with Elrond's disapproval were missing and we had to read a comic for that?
As for the acting... nah. Anakin calls for the kind of caged-furnace rage that a Fassbender, Driver or Bale can provide, and Christensen falls way short, likely because of poor direction but also because he sadly lacks that gravitas. People talk about Kylo as a petulant adolescent and that's an element in his characterisation, but the rage he projects on Crait comes across as far less whiny and more credibly frightening than what we get after Anakin's massacre of the Tuskens. It's both overwrought and undercranked.
The Lord of the Rings films is a really poor example given the books came first long before the movies and well as much as I enjoyed the films the film makers deviated from the books, sometimes in ways that down right butchered some characters.
I have to say, I find it really striking how snappy some of the dialogue in TLJ is. It's weird that even something as simple as Finn finishing Rose's "tracking us from the lead ship" sentence feels weird and fresh for the series. Or something as human-feeling as the "you had a father who loved you" exchange, and I love the way that Ridley gets Rey to crack at that exact moment, and then Kylo presses her further.
In the context of watching the films, it's not stupid. It reflects poorly on the film if I have to go and read a book to understand why a character behaves this way.
Could you imagine having to do this for Lord of the Rings, because we aren't given any reason to understand why Theoden would abandon Edoras? Or if all the scenes with Elrond's disapproval were missing and we had to read a comic for that?
As for the acting... nah. Anakin calls for the kind of caged-furnace rage that a Fassbender, Driver or Bale can provide, and Christensen falls way short, likely because of poor direction but also because he sadly lacks that gravitas. People talk about Kylo as a petulant adolescent and that's an element in his characterisation, but the rage he projects on Crait comes across as far less whiny and more credibly frightening than what we get after Anakin's massacre of the Tuskens. It's both overwrought and undercranked.
I'm saying that Anakin was written to be a whiny teenager in Attack of the Clones
You might think that was a bad choice, but just calling it "whiny" or "petulant adolescent" is agreeing with me, I'm saying I think it was intentional on the part of George Lucas.
I'm saying that Anakin was written to be a whiny teenager in Attack of the Clones
You might think that was a bad choice, but just calling it "whiny" or "petulant adolescent" is agreeing with me, I'm saying I think it was intentional on the part of George Lucas.
I mean, then that's Lucas turning everything Obi-Wan says about Anakin in Episode IV into a lie and crafting a much worse character than the one that little speech promised us. But it's still not a good performance of a petulant child, because once the petulant child is chopping up toddlers, there needs to be a demonstration of something really monstrous there. To paraphrase Tim Robey, "in Episode III, a fall to the Dark Side registers as an ever-deepening sulk".
The Lord of the Rings films is a really poor example given the books came first long before the movies and well as much as I enjoyed the films the film makers deviated from the books, sometimes in ways that down right butchered some characters.
But within the context of the films, we have total clarity on who the characters are and what they want. Faramir changes drastically from the book, sure, but I completely understand what film Faramir is about and his temptation reinforces a key theme as well as setting up further conflict for the third film.
I mean, then that's Lucas turning everything Obi-Wan says about Anakin in Episode IV into a lie and crafting a much worse character than the one that little speech promised us. But it's still not a good performance of a petulant child, because once the petulant child is chopping up toddlers, there needs to be a demonstration of something really monstrous there. To paraphrase Tim Robey, "in Episode III, a fall to the Dark Side registers as an ever-deepening sulk".
I think Vader's feelings are nicely summed up in Return of the Jedi:
Return of the Jedi said:
Luke: Come with me. Vader: Obi-Wan once thought as you do. You don't know the power of the dark side! I must obey my master.
Luke: I will not turn. And you'll be forced to kill me.
Vader: If that is your destiny.
Luke: Search your feelings, father. You can't do this. I feel the conflict within you. Let go of your hate. Vader: It is... too late for me, son. The Emperor will show you the true nature of the Force. He is your master now.
He doesn't hate the Jedi kids, he's just following his new owner's commands, the only difference between Vader and the mind-controlled clones he once loved marching alongside him is that Vader had a chance to choose and he... chose poorly, and kept choosing poorly because... reasons.
I mean, then that's Lucas turning everything Obi-Wan says about Anakin in Episode IV into a lie and crafting a much worse character than the one that little speech promised us. But it's still not a good performance of a petulant child, because once the petulant child is chopping up toddlers, there needs to be a demonstration of something really monstrous there. To paraphrase Tim Robey, "in Episode III, a fall to the Dark Side registers as an ever-deepening sulk".
But within the context of the films, we have total clarity on who the characters are and what they want. Faramir changes drastically from the book, sure, but I completely understand what film Faramir is about and his temptation reinforces a key theme as well as setting up further conflict for the third film.
Seriously, it's asinine to say "Actually having to read two books, a few comics, and watch six seasons of a cartoon to understand a movie is good". The work needs to stand on its own, full stop. The EU material is meant to be expanded fun stuff you can read on the side because you enjoyed the movie. You shouldn't have to do homework. The comparison to the LotR films is a spot one - you can go into the films 10000% cold and fully grasp what's going on with the story, the characters, the themes, etc. Reading the books helps or might give you a leg up on someone who's never read them before, but it's not required.
Also the Jedi and Sith are 100000% religions, they're explicitly framed as such within the films, come the fuck on. Luke literally calls the Jedi a religion in TLJ and they're coded in the Prequels as a religious order - they wear robes that are clearly inspired by real life monks, they're (ostensibly) detached from worldly affairs and focus on the spiritual, they talk about doctrine and sacred texts and shit, etc. They're drawing a lot from Eastern religions and imagery, but just because there isn't a Jedi Pope doesn't make them not a religion.
The EU (both old and new) is fucking littered with alternative groups of Force users who don't follow Jedi teachings, why is this suddenly controversial?
Also the Jedi and Sith are 100000% religions, they're explicitly framed as such within the films, come the fuck on. Luke literally calls the Jedi a religion in TLJ and they're coded in the Prequels as a religious order
You're dealing with nerds here, you'll need something more concrete than framing and coding, with a pedigree more ancient than the new millennium. Fortunately, both Tarkin and Han (and that one Moff whose name isn't used onscreen, and thus whose name I will never remember, but whom Vader chokes) use the R-word outright in dialogue in Star Wars.
Seriously, it's asinine to say "Actually having to read two books, a few comics, and watch six seasons of a cartoon to understand a movie is good". The work needs to stand on its own, full stop. The EU material is meant to be expanded fun stuff you can read on the side because you enjoyed the movie. You shouldn't have to do homework. The comparison to the LotR films is a spot one - you can go into the films 10000% cold and fully grasp what's going on with the story, the characters, the themes, etc. Reading the books helps or might give you a leg up on someone who's never read them before, but it's not required.
You can understand the movies just fine watching them without reading the EU, though?
Seriously, what the fuck is supposed to be confusing about the Star Wars movies? Is this some sequel thing I don't know about?
I'm bringing up the comics and such when people talk about the setting, and other details that do not significantly affect the plot or meaning of the prequels!
Being a Jedi is, AFAICT, both a religion and a culture, at least in the prequels.
Luke's New Jedi Order would presumably not inherit the prequel Jedi Culture, just the religion.
You can understand the movies just fine watching them without reading the EU, though?
Seriously, what the fuck is supposed to be confusing about the Star Wars movies? Is this some sequel thing I don't know about?
I'm bringing up the comics and such when people talk about the setting, and other details that do not significantly affect the plot or meaning of the prequels!
Well, we spent hours arguing over your definition of what relationships/forms of love the Jedi termed "attachment" and "possession", and several people contended that those were never defined within the films, nor were the parameters of acceptable relationships for a Jedi shown to us. That's why I'm saying this.
And if Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic doesn't count, then neither does your EU, and anyways there were sympathetic Sith. I can remember Ventress at the end of her run on one of the shows on TV like retiring peacefully and not slaughtering or enslaving anybody. And really the entire Droid Army/Separatist thingy I could kinda sympathize with. Nobody treated Droids with much respect. Even the Jedi don't really pay attention to R2-D2 when he's not like beeping and whirring right in their faces. So that's one example of a sympathetic Sith and Sith movement that didn't have to be about "killing and enslaving," rather it was about freedom for Droids, altho Count Dooku's influence and all that just made things worse.
And the Jedi do shun emotions. Drawing arbitrary lines about how much attachment is "too much and evil" is not only weirdly religious but not even how emotions work. They shun them because they don't understand them. Loving somebody or marrying them isn't always possessive. Often it is not. So not only do they shun emotions by making weird arbitrary standards on acceptable versus unacceptable/"too much emotion" but that also makes them a very flawed religious cult. To me. And you're not likely to change my opinion.
Ventress quit. That's kind of why she stopped slaughtering and enslaving people. You can't say quitting Sithhood makes her a sympathetic Sith because she wasn't a Sith because she quit and that's why she was sympathetic. That's kind of the point of her quitting; she's not a Sith anymore and she now gets to not do these things.
Including the commanders of the droid army, who manufactured droids as disposable fodder and deployed the army in service of base mercantile interests. Framing the CIS as being about droid liberation is some kind of bass-ackwards.
Ventress quit. That's kind of why she stopped slaughtering and enslaving people. You can't say quitting Sithhood makes her a sympathetic Sith because she wasn't a Sith because she quit and that's why she was sympathetic. That's kind of the point of her quitting; she's not a Sith anymore and she now gets to not do these things.
It's a war. The Jedi killed people too. They have also killed Droids. And they use the Mind Trick freely, so they use skeevy mind control, just like Sith when it suits them. Do y'all people who love Jedi love skeevy mind control too? Thought not. So you know, it's a war, and I found her sympathetic before that even as a lady who went thru a hellish backstory and came out really tough and competent. So I sympathized with Sith Ventress too, just not because of her morally questionable acts, but because she was a solid villainess character. You don't have to agree with freaking mass murder or treating soldiers as disposable to admire a resourceful survivor-type like Ventress.
Including the commanders of the droid army, who manufactured droids as disposable fodder and deployed the army in service of base mercantile interests. Framing the CIS as being about droid liberation is some kind of bass-ackwards.
I don't think the rank-and-file knew about that. And I'm sure General Grievous himself wouldn't tell his soldiers it's not about Droid liberation. I'm speaking from the perspective of a character who doesn't know the behind-the-scenes motivations. And like I said to Mister or Miss Night, just because I like Ventress or Grievous because they fought for what I thought was a good cause, does not mean I like "enslaving and murdering," even when they do it. But it is a freaking war.
I don't think the rank-and-file knew about that. And I'm sure General Grievous himself wouldn't tell his soldiers it's not about Droid liberation. I'm speaking from the perspective of a character who doesn't know the behind-the-scenes motivations.
The secular powers behind the CIS were too-big-for-their-breeches industrial and financial cartels, that named their ships things like "Lucrehulk" and "Invisible Hand." Subtle, their motivations ain't. But I'll freely admit I'm not up on the entire Clone Wars canon, so if you can point me to some CIS droid-facing propaganda that does frame their cause as one of droid liberation, then I'll also freely admit that you're not talking out your ass.
General Grievous was the leader of the Droid Separatist military forces. Count Dooku was in the background. For all your bluster about how we should know the true reasons are what you say they are, you just give ship names, and I honestly never heard General Grievous or Ventress or even Dooku say anything remotely like, "I wanna use the soldiers like cannon fodder ha-ha-ha let's blow up all the Droids." So I think you're equally-ass-talking too here, friend. I also don't need to put up with your nerdy aggro about a fake movie.
Well, we spent hours arguing over your definition of what relationships/forms of love the Jedi termed "attachment" and "possession", and several people contended that those were never defined within the films, nor were the parameters of acceptable relationships for a Jedi shown to us. That's why I'm saying this.
Attachment is explained sufficiently for the plot in Revenge of the Sith, and then demonstrated by Anakin Skywalker.
The movies can't, shouldn't, and don't explain every detail of the world. They only need to explain the plot-relevant parts; it's okay if non plot-relevant worldbuilding, like where the exact line on attachment and possession between Vader and what Jedi are allowed to do lies, is left to be explained by supplemental materials.
And if Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic doesn't count, then neither does your EU, and anyways there were sympathetic Sith. I can remember Ventress at the end of her run on one of the shows on TV like retiring peacefully and not slaughtering or enslaving anybody. And really the entire Droid Army/Separatist thingy I could kinda sympathize with. Nobody treated Droids with much respect. Even the Jedi don't really pay attention to R2-D2 when he's not like beeping and whirring right in their faces. So that's one example of a sympathetic Sith and Sith movement that didn't have to be about "killing and enslaving," rather it was about freedom for Droids, altho Count Dooku's influence and all that just made things worse.
And the Jedi do shun emotions. Drawing arbitrary lines about how much attachment is "too much and evil" is not only weirdly religious but not even how emotions work. They shun them because they don't understand them. Loving somebody or marrying them isn't always possessive. Often it is not. So not only do they shun emotions by making weird arbitrary standards on acceptable versus unacceptable/"too much emotion" but that also makes them a very flawed religious cult. To me. And you're not likely to change my opinion.
The two continuities, Canon and Legends, have been separate things for a long time, at least back to 2005, probably back to 2000 when G-canon and C-canon and whatnot were established:
George Lucas said:
"I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my world. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions."
The only thing Disney changed is that Disney started publishing a fuckton of stuff as canon rather than what they wound up naming "Legends"
KOTOR was published in 2003, after 2000 when G-canon and C-canon were established, and as such was never intended to supercede anything George Lucas said!
Disney canon doesn't have a hierarchy like that, but KOTOR is Legends, not Canon.
Here's where you can read about what is canon and how that works in Star Wars.
Jedi and Droids:
Mace Windu attempted to negotiate with battle droids (T-canon, Disney canon):
Article:
Mace Windu: "My name is General Mace Windu, of the Jedi Order. At this point of the Clone War, I have dismantled and destroyed over 100,000 of you type 1 battle droids. I am giving you an opportunity to peacefully lay down your weapons, so that you may be reprogrammed to serve a better purpose than spreading the mindless violence and chaos which you have inflicted upon the galaxy." Battle droid: "Blast them!" Obi-Wan Kenobi: "Well, I guess it was worth a try."
Professor Huyang existed (T-canon, Disney canon), and is pretty well respected by Jedi:
Article:
And... do we ever see any canon evidence whatsoever of the Sith and their empire promoting their droid army's independence and individuality like the Jedi do for the clones? Actions matter more than words.
They, unlike the Jedi, certainly don't respect the clones' independence and individuality, given that they us e fucking mind-control chips (T-canon, Disney canon) to force them to betray their friends and never give them a choice about anything once the Empire forms!
Emotions:
We absolutely do see what "too much attachment" looks like in Attack of the Clones (the Tuskens) and Revenge of the Sith (Vader)! It is straight up on-screen G-canon backed up by author statements! This isn't even slightly a Jedi mysticism thing! It is something completely inextricable from the prequel trilogy!
JEDI ARE ALLOWED TO LOVE! This is stated explicitly in Attack of the Clones by ANAKIN FUCKING SKYWALKER! It is backed up by direct author statements! There isn't even the slightest bit of ambiguity here!
I don't think the rank-and-file knew about that. And I'm sure General Grievous himself wouldn't tell his soldiers it's not about Droid liberation. I'm speaking from the perspective of a character who doesn't know the behind-the-scenes motivations. And like I said to Mister or Miss Night, just because I like Ventress or Grievous because they fought for what I thought was a good cause, does not mean I like "enslaving and murdering," even when they do it. But it is a freaking war.
I think we should all take a step back from this for a day or two so we can ruminate on it and think about all that's been said before the venom starts to spray harder.
I think we should all take a step back from this for a day or two so we can ruminate on it and think about all that's been said before the venom starts to spray harder.
Attachment is explained sufficiently for the plot in Revenge of the Sith, and then demonstrated by Anakin Skywalker.
The movies can't, shouldn't, and don't explain every detail of the world. They only need to explain the plot-relevant parts; it's okay if non plot-relevant worldbuilding, like where the exact line on attachment and possession between Vader and what Jedi are allowed to do lies, is left to be explained by supplemental materials.
Uh, no, that's not how canon works.
The two continuities, Canon and Legends, have been separate things for a long time, at least back to 2005, probably back to 2000 when G-canon and C-canon and whatnot were established:
The only thing Disney changed is that Disney started publishing a fuckton of stuff as canon rather than what they wound up naming "Legends"
KOTOR was published in 2003, after 2000 when G-canon and C-canon were established, and as such was never intended to supercede anything George Lucas said!
Disney canon doesn't have a hierarchy like that, but KOTOR is Legends, not Canon.
Here's where you can read about what is canon and how that works in Star Wars.
Jedi and Droids:
Mace Windu attempted to negotiate with battle droids (T-canon, Disney canon):
Article:
Mace Windu: "My name is General Mace Windu, of the Jedi Order. At this point of the Clone War, I have dismantled and destroyed over 100,000 of you type 1 battle droids. I am giving you an opportunity to peacefully lay down your weapons, so that you may be reprogrammed to serve a better purpose than spreading the mindless violence and chaos which you have inflicted upon the galaxy." Battle droid: "Blast them!" Obi-Wan Kenobi: "Well, I guess it was worth a try."
Professor Huyang existed (T-canon, Disney canon), and is pretty well respected by Jedi:
Article:
And... do we ever see any canon evidence whatsoever of the Sith and their empire promoting their droid army's independence and individuality like the Jedi do for the clones? Actions matter more than words.
They, unlike the Jedi, certainly don't respect the clones' independence and individuality, given that they us e fucking mind-control chips (T-canon, Disney canon) to force them to betray their friends and never give them a choice about anything once the Empire forms!
Emotions:
We absolutely do see what "too much attachment" looks like in Attack of the Clones (the Tuskens) and Revenge of the Sith (Vader)! It is straight up on-screen G-canon backed up by author statements! This isn't even slightly a Jedi mysticism thing! It is something completely inextricable from the prequel trilogy!
JEDI ARE ALLOWED TO LOVE! This is stated explicitly in Attack of the Clones by ANAKIN FUCKING SKYWALKER! It is backed up by direct author statements! There isn't even the slightest bit of ambiguity here!
Now you're not even talking about what the Sith and Jedi are like, you're just talking about lies Sith tell people!
I'm going to gently disagree there. If it's actually defined in the third film, then it's a whole film too late in that we've been watching them fret about what might happen and how they can't do this for hours before any reason is given. Plus Anakin's fall is such a jarring cliff-dive into mass child-murder that it doesn't feel connected to that rule except for it being a component of Palpatine's daft pitch.
And there's still room, even a need in some cases, for scenes which build theme and character even if they aren't vital to the plot. These are not films dedicated to narrative economy. Lucas made time for midichlorians. If he wants me to think that Anakin is failing to be honest because he's greedy and his relationship with Padme is inherently and uniquely bad, rather than Anakin is torn between two things that give him a vital sense of belonging, then I need to see a contrast to this uniquely toxic relationship.
And to speak of a totally different Star Wars, I find myself more and more surprised by where people thought Finn had ended up by the end of VII. He stuck his neck out for one person, missed the Starkiller blowing up so his belief that the FO were unstoppable hadn't really been challenged, had no connection to the Resistance except gratitude to one person and promptly got mauled by Kylo for his trouble.
I'm not sure what Abrams was going for here, except that Rey being the Force-sensitive protagonist had to be a reveal?
)