NelanisGhost posted:

---

Grey1 posted:

---

I just watched the movie yesterday, and there's one thing I'm asking myself... does the novel deal with (or include at all) the "clone commander cowardice" issues? You know, the scene in the first battle, when either Rex or Cody isn't as cool-headed as Obi-Wan, and then the starfighter battle when Oddball apologises for his panic rush after Obi-Wan saves him?

Just for the record, I think these scenes both helped make the clones "human" and to show the Jedi as very able and very inspired leaders who are treating their troops like family.

---

To be fair, the Clones are about two years old. They're TODDLERS.

---

Persephone_Kore posted:

---

In the book (but not, I believe, the movie), Rex claims to be ten. The line was IMO one of the highlights of the book. I don't recall if the average age was stated.

---

NelanisGhost posted:

---

To be fair, the Clones are about two years old. They're TODDLERS.

---

dp4m posted:

---

This is true. But I've also heard that the movie (yet to see it) both a) doesn't get into the heads of the characters at all and b) doesn't convey one WHIT of the universal antipathy for the Jedi demonstrated in the heads of many of the characters in the books.

---

Dark Lady Mara posted:

---

dp4m posted:

---

This is true. But I've also heard that the movie (yet to see it) both a) doesn't get into the heads of the characters at all and b) doesn't convey one WHIT of the universal antipathy for the Jedi demonstrated in the heads of many of the characters in the books.

---

I kind of think that's what makes this interesting as a novelization -- the fact that it's barely a novelization at all. There's so little information given in the movie on how the characters feel about anything (and some of the few moments in which it was revealed what was going on in someone's head, like the one in which the clone pilot panics, are omitted) that Traviss pretty much got free rein.

---

dp4m posted:

---

Dark Lady Mara posted:

---

dp4m posted:

---

This is true. But I've also heard that the movie (yet to see it) both a) doesn't get into the heads of the characters at all and b) doesn't convey one WHIT of the universal antipathy for the Jedi demonstrated in the heads of many of the characters in the books.

---

I kind of think that's what makes this interesting as a novelization -- the fact that it's barely a novelization at all. There's so little information given in the movie on how the characters feel about anything (and some of the few moments in which it was revealed what was going on in someone's head, like the one in which the clone pilot panics, are omitted) that Traviss pretty much got free rein.

---

Right, and again without seeing it yet, there's something disingenuous about the picture conveying non-stop heroism and the inner-monologue of the "novelization" showing doubt, antipathy and scary-evil stuff.

---

dizfactor posted:

---

dp4m posted:

---

Right, and again without seeing it yet, there's something disingenuous about the picture conveying non-stop heroism and the inner-monologue of the "novelization" showing doubt, antipathy and scary-evil stuff.

---

The same actions which can be portrayed in a heroic light by someone looking at it from the outside could also be accompanied by inner turmoil unseen by the casual observer. You can set footage of the troops hitting the beach at Normandy to thrilling heroic overtures, but if you were to look inside the heads of those same troops, it would look much darker and scarier.

Now, let's say you were to have footage of Normandy set to an uplifting soundtrack, but with a voiceover expressing the inner doubts and turmoil of one of the infantrymen. The inner monologue would cast the soundtrack itself in a different light - it might sound sinister because it would be so jarringly inappropriate. That wouldn't be disingenuous. It could potentially be a very interesting artistic choice.

This is sort of the same thing. The movie and the novel are intentionally two different emotional and moral spins on the same narrative events, and to some extent they seem intended to serve as counterpoints to each other. The same things happen, but they're looked at differently, so there's no one "correct" emotional or moral interpretation of the events. That carves out a lot of space for reader agency and ambiguity, which is pretty much the definition of good art in my book.

---

Tyrantus posted:

---

Ok guys, it's been a long time since I've posted on these boards but I just got back from seeing the film and intend to get the novel ASAP. One thing I'd like to ask (and please don't flame me for asking this, I've searched the first 10 pages and such) is if this book gives us a good idea of when this took place. I really couldn't tell, I need to brush up on my CW history, as I've got Anakin's scar, his knighthood, and the use of Acclamators and Venators all mixed up. Right off the bat it seems like it took place during the later half of the war. I'm mostly interested because of the Ahsoka/Anakin thing.

---