PT Was Tartakovsky wrong or was Lucas about General Grievous's character?

I love the Tartakovsky Clone Wars series, even though it is over the top. That was a stylist decision. That being said, I like his portrayal of Greivous, and Lucas' as well. They reflect the different approaches to story telling with two excellent writers.

 

True. Grievous did kill Nahdar Webb in the first season episode "Lair of Grievous", didn't he?

For what it's worth, I like all the incarnations of Grievous, even if the 2D CW one is a bit overly stylized.

 

I find myself straddling the fence on this.
On the one hand, I absolutely adhere to the logic of Filoni & Lucas that a single Forceless robot is not going to be slaying real Jedi in single combat... unless that robot fights dirty as hell.
On the other hand, I also believe that a great sci-fi/action story gives its the advantage to its villains. Generally, the bad guys should be tougher or smarter or both. It makes the heroic triumph all the more sweet.

I think Grievous should have been a threat to Jedi Knights and cannon fodder for the likes of Yoda and Mace. Shrewd and cunning? Yes. Cowardly? No. One does not become the supreme military commander of a secessionist movement and Jedi Target #1 without having a pair of durasteel balls.

 

George was wrong, no doubt! Lucas wished to portray him as a twirley musteche villain, with cape and top hat no less (they skipped the top-hat thank god!).
At the same time he wanted grievous to be a jedi-killer ( in some sense) as well as the seperatists great general. I hope you realise it's impossible for such a character to be even remotely believable, especially not in the star wars universe! Tanakovskys vision fits the jedi-killer/great general-portrayal a thousand times better than lucas' 30's mustache villain.

and for those thinking he's to over the top, please explain to me how in every episode, both CW and TWC, the jedi miraculesly win every obstacle thrown at them, at least against the seperatists.Grievous is in no way too over-the top compared to jedi, or the "heroes". Tatakovskys portrayal is needed if the seperatists are meant to be a believable fighting force against the republic and the jedi.

 

My feeling on Grievous has always been that, while there's nothing wrong with a throwback mustache-twirling vaudevillain type, making him a four-armed lightsaber-wielding Jedi-killer cyborg is kind of jarring. Pick one or the other.

 

So did Alec Guiness for Obi-Wan. So did Anthony Daniels for 3PO. There is nothing wrong with talented people having their take on a character.

 

Remember, however, that the Battle of Hypori was Grievous' debut. The Jedi thought he was a new type of battle droid at first, they severely underestimated what Grievous was capable of. Grievous is a master at deception, and uses deceptive tactics to get the upper hand on his opponents, such as when he snuck up on the Jedi by walking on the ceiling. The Grievous we see in RotS is meant to be a slightly weakened version after having his chest crushed in by Windu, so he's a bit more careful when going up against powerful opponents like the combo of Anakin and Obi-Wan. In RotS, Grievous still seemed incredibly threatening to me; capturing two of the Jedi Order's most powerful Jedi in a trap, then nearly killing them during his escape from the destroyed Invisible Hand. The only reason that Grievous lost against Obi-Wan on Utapau was because he got cocky and left himself open for attacks on his gutsack while he chose to try to intimidate Obi-Wan with broad, flashy strikes.

 

At the time, possibly. Depends on if Lucas had watched the original CW cartoon and taken it into account when creating his Grievous. However, since then, we got TCW, which also has Grievous with a cough, and which also has him be careful when going up against tough opponents, and lose when swarmed.

 

I'm not going to say either one is wrong, but I know which one feels right.

 

I think they both had faults, but George was wrong. My problem with Lucas' portrayal is that it paints this image of Grievous, that I just hate. That he's just a mustache twirling villain meant to be the symbol of the CIS in The Galaxy, but in reality, he's a coward, a bad fighter and generally lame.

As opposed to Genndy, whose a legitimate threat.

I have no problem with Grievous not being the god of a monster he was in '03, but I don't think it's right that he's some lame villains that makes you wonder why anyone takes him seriously, seeing as how he loses all the time!

 

Mace Windu was like Goku from DBZ on that cartoon

 

​

If GT over-stated what GG could do, that's on him, not Lucas.

How was George wrong when the movie-version of the droid moron was built to suit his vision? Onscreen: he's smart enough to trap two Jedi, quite a pain in pateesa to corner, but not a much of a threat to a level-headed Jedi Master in a straight-up fight. His only purpose was serve as a red-herring for the Sith, so how much of a threat did he really need to be? He was used to distract the Jedi whenever Sidious wanted their attention somewhere else. Classic mustache-twirler in my book.

 

I think there are better ways to have a red herring villain without him coming off as incompetent.

And when I say this, I'm moreso referring to the TCW version. Which Lucas spearheaded.

 

You know who was right about Grievous? Not Tartakovsky or Lucas.

Stover.

As badly as I think Dooku comes off in the ROTS novel, Grievous is magnificent. Particularly in the first section with the "This is General Grievous" introduction. Unstoppable? No. Not at all. But brilliant, brutal, and absolutely horrifying.

 

General Grievous, though—
Grievous is a monster.
The Separatist Supreme Commander is an abomination of
nature, a fusion of flesh and droid—and his droid parts have more
compassion than what remains of his alien flesh. This half-living
creature is a slaughterer of billions. Whole planets have burned at his
command. He is the evil genius of the Confederacy. The architect of
their victories.
The author of their atrocities.
And his durasteel grip has closed upon Palpatine. He confirms
the capture personally in a wideband transmission from his
command cruiser in the midst of the orbital battle. Beings across the
galaxy watch, and shudder, and pray that they might wake up from
this awful dream.
Because they know that what they're watching, live on the
HoloNet, is the death of the Republic.

 

I think GG played different roles in CW and RotS.

In CW, he was the commander of the droid armies, with Dooku mostly stay behind the stage, he was pretty much the most important foe of the Jedi and the Republic, of course he has to be very menacing and powerful otherwise they would. GG really wasn't over the top, Mace Windu defeated him easily.

In RotS, the Clone Wars is no longer the main focus, the wars was pretty much ending, the movie mostly focused on Anakin's downfall and Palpatine revealed himself to turn the Republic into the Empire. GG is just a little piece to show people, he's less important than Dooku, so he doesn't need to provide too much of a fight. Especially due to Ian and Lee's age, it was not easy to create good fights for Palpatine and Dooku, it would not be wise to let GG overshadow him.

Also it gave a possible reason why GG was so weak at that time, his chest was wounded by Windu.

That's why I don't like GG in TCW, in the Clone Wars, when there were enough time and the war should be the main focus, he should be a very menacing foe but instead he only killed one Jedi, using blaster to ambush.

 

"What some people/fans don't understand is that Genndy's micro-series is mostly a caricature due to its stylized nature."

I agree with this. The cartoons are fun, but when understood as a highly exaggerated caricature. So, when depictions of Grievous are understood in this way, there is no contradiction of the movie.

 

He was weak in SITH for a reason... he was acting only as distraction... to seperate Obi Wan and Anakin. How can Tartakovsky go against the guy who is providing him with employment? Makes no sense...

 

I'll go ahead and say that it was actually Filoni who was wrong about Grievous.

We are led to believe that he's a threat, a genious strategist and tactitian, a formidable opponent in single combat. Instead, we get a cliche, bumbling, incompetent, too-cartoony villain, who always runs away with the all to tired "I'll get you next time, Kenobi!" That really ruined the character for me, which I feel is a missed opportunity. They took his behaviour in ROTS and took it to an absurd extreme. Yeah, he does run away when he sees he can't win, but any sane person would. Instead, they took that as a "Alright, this guy always runs away." and just went along with it.

I feel Grievous is a missed opportunity to make a truly interesting villain, but, oh well.

 

Lucas was probably right on Grievous. the first Clone Wars series Greivous was way too powerful.

 

Maybe we should summarise the achievements, and failures, of each version of Grievous (CW, TCW, comics & books) so we can compare them?

 

CW GG

Killed 1 master from the holo we saw, then defeated a combo of 6 Jedi, including 2 council members and killed 2 on Hypori.
Killed a bunch of Palpatine's guards easily, killed 2 masters and easily subdued Shaak Ti during the battle of Corusant .
Was defeated by Mace Windu easily with Force Crush on his chest.
TCW GG Defeated Ahsoka a few times. Killed 1 Jedi knight with blaster ambush. Was owned many many times, including defeated by Gungans. His previous kill in comics was given to Savage.

 

He was portrayed differently by design... in the cartoons he's more of an aggitator, distraction, to cause messes, to screw with the Jedis more than anything... in SITH he's MEANT to be a distraction, to run away so Obi Wan will follow...

 

I LOVE the Micro-series, in all of it's ridiculous stylized glory. That said, neither is 'right' about the character. I feel Lucas wasted a great design, but don't think Tartavosky's interpretation (which didn't go against Lucas, simply worked with the little he knew) would have fit any better in the film. My problem with movie grievous is he's introduced and then killed off seemingly just to give Obi-wan something to do while Anakin is tempted. It feels lazy. The third act is too late to treat a character that's new as a major threat except for very few exceptions.

If anything, I'd have used his design as a CIS enforcer with screen time in AOTC, acting as a sort of vader to Dooku in order to fool the galaxy that the count is the top of the chain. Mostly quiet but boastful and cruel when having the upper hand, This version would be a bit more like the micro-series admittedly. Anyway, for this character to then be defeated in ROTS would feel more important, as a symbol that the CIS is dying only to be replaced by the true threat. I'd also have him goad Obi-Wan into dueling with him, to take away the stupidity that is leaving impressionable Anakin with Palpatine intentionally.

 

Eeh. His escape from the Invisible Hand was pretty cool. But I think that may be canceled out by his overall cowardice and uselessness.