Saga Prequel Jedi vs Classic Jedi

Seems I've started a small debate about the difference between the Jedi in both trilogies. Didn't want to derail the thread so here it is.

The way I see it, in the Prequel trilogy, the Jedi are arrogant, aloof, vain and blind. They are demi-gods and they know it. And that is what will cause their downfall. They can't believe that a Sith is so close to them. They treat it as a vague menace. We can see in their lightsaber duel what's wrong with them. Flashy moves, excitement, showing off. They take in stride an army of slave clones without a second thought. All this seems the opposite of what I knew about a Jedi from the Classic trilogy. In the whoile prequel trilogy, only Yoda seems to have some doubt about what they are doing. He seems pretty unhappy. All the others seems blind to their own failings.

In the classic trilogy, they seem to gain wisdom, to have learned from their mistake. They seem much more humble. Look at what Yoda says: Excitement, adventure, a Jedi craves not these things. When your are calm, at peace, etc. They strive to teach these things to Luke, but they didn't talk about them in the prequel trilogy. The duels are much more calm, less flashy moves. There is a zen-like quality to them that was not apparent in the prequel trilogy.

Concerning lightsaber duels, it seems to me that the duels start as really show-off in TPM menace, then gradually becomes less flashy in the prequel trilogy. Also, compare the Sith technique with those of the Jedi. They seems much less showy, much more efficient with their moves.

 

Well, of course the "Luke Skywalker" brand of Jedi is preferable, but that's kind of the point... I think.

The decadence, hyper-conservatism, and hypocrisy of the Jedi Order is one of the most understated themes of the PT. So much so that at times I've questioned whether or not it was intentional. It's there, certainly, but it's never really addressed head on. The only one who ever comments on it is Palpatine during his talks with Anakin, and being the deceiver that he is, you don't really know if he even believes what he's actually saying. The Jedi act aloof and dogmatic (as far as we perceive them to be), but the films themselves treat the Jedi quite sympathetically. Part of me wonders if GL strived to show a mostly heroic and relatable Jedi Order that was just flawed enough to get duped by Palpatines schemes, but instead created a Jedi Order that had deep, fundamental issues that led directly to their downfall.

But I'll choose to believe that it was intentional. The flawed, Pharisee-like nature of the PT Jedi is deliberately meant to contrast with the rebirth of the Jedi way that comes with Luke in the OT.

 

Yes, I also believe it's intentional. It's not spelled out, but you can see the huge contrast between Yoda and Mace Windu. Yoda is clearly unconfortable with a lot of things in the PT, but it doesn't seem to bother any other Jedi. And there are a lot of other subtle hints that point to their hypocrisy. Actually, I think that is what was meant by the prophecy of bringing balance to the force. Anakin was indeed the chosen one. The old order had to be wiped out to allow the birth of the new order.

I also think that is one of the reason why people have a hard time loving the PT. I used to think the Jedi had always been like Luke Skywalker, not those arrogant self-righteous jerks. I'm pretty sure thats a source of disapointment for some.

I also think it had to be subtle.Would you believe in jedi if they were complete jerk? They still had to be Jedi, but with some subtle differences and flaws that could bring their downfall.

 

I agree with you about your observation on the Jedi. I still disagree about your opinion on the lightsaber fights.

 

The OT Jedi aren't really "the Jedi", they're just two Jedi and happen to be two of the best from the PT.

I like the PT Jedi as a concept, probably better than the vague Jedi concept in the OT. What are Jedi in the OT? Two guys hiding.

I don't really see the PT Jedi as deeply flawed, I don't think they're particularly aloof or dogmatic, and even if they were, I don't find aloof and dogmatic disagreeable.

I don't find the PT Jedi and the OT Jedi ideal all that different. I don't find Luke to be all that better than Yoda, Qui-Gon or even, eek, Obi-Wan. I don't think Luke is "right" in ESB, I don't think he was meant to be right. Luke in ROTJ is only what Yoda would have him be, what Yoda would be himself, what Yoda was himself to an extent before tragedy befell him, before tragedy befell them all.

Pretty sure Yoda, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan talk about these things in the PT, pretty sure they have these qualities.

 

To me, there are no tangible differences between PT jedi and OT Jedi. The only difference is in the context.

In the OT, they are all but extinct and, indeed, all hierachical aspects have more or less disappeared. Ben and Yoda only act in the background (especially Yoda) as role model and teachers for Luke. They're as much friends to Luke as they're masters I'd say. Unlike what transpires from AOTC and ROTS between Anakin and Obi-Wan (despite some lines). That's why they're more sympathetic and likable I guess.

I really have a hard time seeing the PT Jedi as really flawed, arrogant and aloof. The only thing I can agree with is that they end up blind and powerless to Palpatine manipulations, and that their misgivings and distrust of Anakin leads him closer to Palpatine and the dark side.

But the Emperor's scheme is way machiavellian and he's the one responsible.

 

I agree. I never understood where this "Jedi blame" argument comes from, as if their philosophy and way of life is somehow wrong. And judging their inability to perceive the Sith plot based on the omniscient point of view of the audience is just the cherry on top.

 

I wasn't aware that saying the pt jedi were flawed was Jedi bashing. For me they fell because palpatine took advantage of those flaws.

 

Yep. I've mostly seen it as this: We enter TPM on the final days of a 1000 year period of peace. No major conflict, no big Holy War to wage. With no external conflict to combat, the focus of the Jedi Order, naturally, has become more internal. Their theology has become less about the defense of justice and more about securing the inner serenity of their individual members. Additionally, their role in society has lessened in both influence and prominance. They've become less like the Knights they still call themselves, and more like monks, striding about in their ornate temple, resigned to doing odd jobs for the senate.

It's not that they aren't heroic, or that they have only themselves to blame for the downfall of society. Perhaps calling them hypocrites is too strong of a term. They were simply the wrong generation of Jedi at the wrong time, unprepared and ill-fit for the massive conflict that would soon be thrust upon them.

And the flawed nature of the Jedi Order isn't fan-fiction, even if it is very understated in the films. TCW plays a lot with this idea, especially in the later seasons, as have many other peripheral sources of Star Wars fiction. It's a thing.

And I do think there is a contrast with the path Luke takes in the OT. Following his urge to help his friends in ESB, despite Yoda's warning, was certainly a mistake born out of youthful angst and is meant to be seen as one, but interestingly the following film presents a similar situation where Luke proves his masters wrong. Both Obi Wan and Yoda are insistent that Luke must kill Vader (I think the motivations go slightly deeper for Obi-Wan, but nevertheless their philosophy is essentially "see Sith, kill Sith, end of story) to the point where they would have preferred Luke never find out the truth if it had made the act of killing easier to accomplish. Luke proves them wrong. He proves that his love for his father is not, ultimately, a weakness, but a strength.

This does not mean Obi-Wan and Yoda were bad teachers, or less heroic. It simply means that they are flawed, imperfect, and that Luke's own take on the Jedi path not only represents a return for the Jedi, but a rebirth as well.

 

The Jedi Order as we see it in the Prequels is definitely flawed and did become victims, in the end, of their own hubris, but that is simply human nature. We are often our own worst enemy and let our pride or complacency lead us down destructive paths.

The only significant difference between the Jedi Order as we see it in the PT and what we see of the Jedi in the OT is, understandably, an absence of the hubris, pride, and complacency that led to the old Order's downfall.

 

It's even stated outright in AOTC that arrogance is a growing problem within the order. That's what Palpatine took advantage of. As a mirroring contrast, Luke took advantage of Palpatine's overconfidence to stop the Sith.
Everyone has flaws. That doesn't mean that they're to blame for their own downfall.

 

That's similar to what I saw. The new Jedi which we see a glimpse of in the CT seems to go down a different path from those of the PT.

Also I see a big difference between Qui-gon, Yoda and the other Jedi. Qui-Gon and Yoda both seem to be calm, at peace. Really zen. The other Jedi hold their emotion in check, but it is there, just under the surface. Compare the intensity of Mace Windu, with the attitude of Qui-Gon and even with the emotions displayed by Obi-Wan.

Remember also the arrogance of the librarian in AOTC, so certain that they know everything.

When I say hypocrisy, I refer to their questionable ethics about the clone army. Also, there is the slave-like life of the padawan. To me, one of the theme of TPM is showing that Anakin the slave had much more freedom than Anakin the Padawan.

 

Here's an interesting opinion from Samnz in the other thread:

 

I don't think anybody is saying that Order 66 is the fault of the Jedi. I think people are saying that the flaws of the Jedi in PT allowed Palpatine to gain power and destroy them.

 

Assuming that's true, what Jedi flaws were exploited by Palpatine? Palpatine just took advantage of the Jedi's role in the Republic.

 

If what this thread is arguing is that the Jedi weren't perfect, well then that is common sense. Palpatine exploited everybody's flaws! It's what he did! The Jedi couldn't have done anything to prevent that, Palpatine could have done it if Luke was Grand Master too.

 

No this thread is arguing that the Jedi from the Prequel trilogy are different from the Jedi that begins with Luke Skywalker.

In fact, I see Luke throwing down his lightsaber in ROTJ as a symbolic rejection of the old Jedi ways.

 

We don't know how the Jedi that begin with Luke are, but the Jedi way is pretty consistent throughout the saga.

It's a symbolic rejection of the dark side, not the Jedi ways (after all, he did say "I'm a Jedi, like my father before me" as he casted his lightsaber aside). He's not rejecting anything the Jedi taught him, other than their request to kill Vader (which is more about saving the galaxy than any sort of teaching).

 

But his throwing down of his lightsabre is followed pretty swiftly by "I am a Jedi, like my father before me".

Not only does this associate him (he associates himself with) his Jedi teachers (countering the ideas that a) he rejected their lessons or b) that he understood them to have been willing him to kill Vader), but it emphasises the continuity of the Jedi path - "....like my father before me"

 

This. And...how exactly did Palpatine undermine the Jedi? What 'fault' was it that he took advantage of? Well, he got them to fight in a war that none of them wanted. Sayong the Jedi are responsible for their downfall is a little like blaming the soldiers in WW1 for the atrocious levels of mortality during that war.

 

Yes, and, then if you follow this line of thought, "like my father before me", all the way through the prequels, that could mean that Luke does in fact reject some of the teachings of Yoda and Obi-Wan.

 

Only if you consider that he remained a Jedi...which we know he didn't.