Did Yoda's lightsaber battle diminish his credibility?

mark my words, the tv ads in 2005 will be "da emperor rules!'

with palpy kicking butt so we know why he is da masta!

Again, I don't think its so much that yoda fights, its that

a) it doesn't make sense dramatically with in the context of the story of aotc

b)he comes off looking weak IMHO


"Key words here are "thought we knew." It seems the reason most people complain about the prequels is because Lucas is taking some folk's preconceptions (actually misconceptions) and turning them on their heads. Get over it."

I think your right, maybe the oT is to be blamed, its so poorly constructed that it made people think all these untrue things, I'll go to the OT forum and bash there.

 

Then the whole duel should've been excluded, as neither Obi-wan or Anakin did nothing to trash the ship when they had the chance. This is also the same film series where people with blasters are firing at each other and no one gets hit, save for droids or clones. (aside from rare moments of those who were canon fodder) There's no logic to it in real life. Just as there was no logic in Yoda doing it during his duel with Dooku. And how do we know if the Sith Lightning could damage the Solar Sailor? And notice that the stone pillar was rather heavy and not so easily moved, even by himself.

I don't know how you could see the duel in TPM as boring. Different tastes, but still that was far from it. Not every duel has to be the same. It's evoultion as we have Dooku trying to convert Obi-wan. Obi-wan trying to bring Anakin back. Vader trying to get Luke, along with Sidious. Then Luke trying to get Vader back.

 

Well, like I've said a few times before, I'm not one of those people who believed Yoda was a pacifist, and I have no objection to having him weild a lightsabre, so all those "You have preconcieved notions, why are you treating Yoda differently to other Jedi's etc etc etc" stuff doesn't apply to me.

In fact, the only point anyone has raised in response to my argument is that Dooku had to escape for Episode III to work. Whilst that is true, Dooku could have escaped in any number of ways which wouldn't have required Yoda to act like an idiot.

That's the problem I have with the duel. Yoda's lightsabre skills aren't that hot, he fails to take advantage of moments when he could have crippled Dooku or damaged his ship, and fails to stop Dooku from escaping. So why do some people think this duel shows why Yoda is "the master"?

 

Perhaps the question to consider here is what did GL intend to show?

Put the acting and the FX aside:

Was GL trying to make Dooku more powerful than we want to accept?

Was GL trying to make Yoda less powerful than we believed?

Was GL simply going for eye candy and the WOW-factor, not really considering how it would fit Yoda's character?




Personally, I think GL purely went for the WOW-factor. Considering this, then adding back the acting and the FX, I don't like the choreography of the Yoda duel. Personally, I think it could/should have been done differently and better.






.

 

I DO NOT believe Yoda was a pacifist. I stated in my earlier post that I thought Yoda had become "enlightened" in the Force. That has nothing to do with pacifism.

I know that a lightsaber is "the weapon of a Jedi", but it seems that the whole point of the OT was show that inner strength is more powerful than technology. One example is Luke turning off his targeting computer during the Battle of Yavin. So it seems that in the final step of Jedi mastery, one would be able to lay down the final technological crutch, the lightsaber, and be totally at one with the Force.

I have NO problem with Yoda being involved in the battle. Jedi are protectors and defenders of peace. It's his job. I loved seeing him face off with Dooku, but I just don't think he should have done it with a lightsaber.

I would also like to address those who have stated that any character could have shown up to battle Dooku and it wouldn't have mattered. Yoda was the only character that could have come to the rescue of Anakin and Obi-Wan. Yoda is NOT a secondary character. Mace Windu is a secondary character. Plo Koon and Ki-Adi are extras. Lucas has stated that the entire saga is the story of Anakin, Padme, Obi-Wan and Yoda. It's not about screen time, it's about the character's overall effect on the storyline and what purpose they play in developing the story's themes. The theme of SW is redemption.

Obi-Wan fails when he loses Anakin to the Dark Side, but he's redeemed by protecting and training Luke. Anakin falls to the Dark Side and is redeemed by killing Palpatine. Padme will probably blame herself for Anakin's fall, but she is redeemed by giving birth to the twins. Yoda will blame himself for EVERYTHING that has gone wrong, but he is redeemed by training Luke. Some will say Luke and Leia should be listed as a major characters, but they had nothing to redeem themselves for. They were the conduits for redemption for the others.

Yoda is obsoultely essential to everyting that transpires in SW.

Sorry to get off on a tanget, but I think that needed to be addressed.

 

"I don't know how you could see the duel in TPM as boring."

Not boring, it just lacks the personal element that the OT films had, AOTC is a bit better, but still has quite a ways to go.


"neither Obi-wan or Anakin did nothing to trash the ship when they had the chance."

When did they have a chance? They aren't as strong as yoda they couldn't have crippled it with debris or lightning, and dooku was at them pretty much the whole time.

"people with blasters are firing at each other and no one gets hit, save for droids or clones."

Well alot of people got in the OT movies, I just wish we'd seen more clones die in the clone battle, though how GL got this to a PG astounds the mind. how many pg movies have mulitple beheadings and implied rape

"I DO NOT believe Yoda was a pacifist. I stated in my earlier post that I thought Yoda had become "enlightened" in the Force. That has nothing to do with pacifism. "

I agree 100%

 

Lemon;


I know that a lightsaber is "the weapon of a Jedi", but it seems that the whole point of the OT was show that inner strength is more powerful than technology. One example is Luke turning off his targeting computer during the Battle of Yavin. So it seems that in the final step of Jedi mastery, one would be able to lay down the final technological crutch, the lightsaber, and be totally at one with the Force.


I'm sorry to have to point this out, but this shows again how people are making conclusions from the PT that are just invented in the viewers's mind.

When Obi-One tells Luke to "use the force" and trust his feelings, he turns off his targeting computer but he still uses the "laser torpedoes". He trusts the Force will guide him, not that the Force by itself would destroy the Death Star.

Using the Death Star example in no way implies that Yoda should have tossed aside his lightsaber, or that the lightsaber is a "technology crutch", that is a conclusion that has not been implied in the movies. The lightsaber is not a tool to tell the Jedi where to hit, it's just a tool. If it was a crutch, it would not be the Jedi's weapon of choice!

Also note that Yoda doesn't pull the lightsaber out from the beggning of the battle, like all other Jedi seem to do. Only when the "Force battle" goes nowhere and Dooku pulls out his does he have to use it.

 

I like AOTC, but I don't think the Yoda fight is in continuity with his character in the OT.

I think it is. I think he learned from what happened in AOTC and EPIII and changed his ways at looking at what the force really is. I think you might see this change in EPIII. And the reason why he did not "attack" Dooku is because Jedi use the force for defense, never attack.

 

Honestly, he fails to land a single blow. At times he does a pointless spin when he could have just stepped forwards and cut Dooku's legs off. When he captures Dooku's lightning he fails to do the one blindingly obvious thing with it: i.e. redirect it at Dooku's ship, which might damage it enough to prevent Dooku from being able to escape, which is what Yoda was trying to achieve.

If you know swordplay, or any kind of man-to-man combat for that matter, you'd know that a match between two skilled opponents will have very few hits... maybe even just one. That's why they're good. But who has the upperhand is obvious to the participants. Even if you are holding your attacker off for now, you can tell when youre going to lose. So Yoda, or Dooku even, not landing a hit is meaningless. Now, it may have appeared that it would be sooo easy for Yoda to move a different direction and cut Dooku's legs off... doesn't make it true. If you watch sports on TV you might say "why didn't he just run that way, it's wide open" or "man, he's holding the ball right there, even I could steal it" ... once again, it may seem that way, but not true by a long shot. Say Yoda had noticed the apparent opening you noticed and went for it. Dooku is just gonna stand there? No, he'd react to it. It might have even been a feint. Looks can be decieving. And as far as launching the pillar into the ship... Yoda has no way of knowing if there are people on that ship, maybe innocent hostages. He's too smart to accidentally kill them.

"Bottom line, Yoda is a Jedi... the lightsaber is a Jedi's weapon. He knows how to use one"

All these arguements can be aplied to Palpatine. So is palpatine a ninja in waiting as well? Someone had to train Maul.

Palpatine is a Jedi? When did this happen? Seriously, he totally could be damn good with a saber, but my perception is that he'd rather shoot lightning at people. But that's my preconcieved perception.

He spouts zen wisdom and is a peace loving master.
"Wars not make one great" etc.

Anybody with a conscience loves peace, doesn't mean he wont kick ass if he needs to. See below

Wars not make one great"

This quote doesn't mean a person would not fight a war. If you think it does, you really need to read about people who have fought wars in real life.

?It is well that war is so terrible?we should grow too fond of it.?
Robert E. Lee

?I am tired and sick of war, its glory is all, moonshine . . . war is hell.?
General William Tecumseh Sherman

?I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.?
Dwight D. Eisenhower


Very well put. Very nice.

 

[Yoda] fails to take advantage of moments when he could have crippled Dooku or damaged his ship, and fails to stop Dooku from escaping.

You're just assuming that it would be easy to cripple a ship. For all we know, a blast of Sith lightning could have harmlessly glanced off the hull.

As for failing to stop Dooku, yes, he did fail. But this is a plot point and not a plot oversight.

 

And as far as launching the pillar into the ship... Yoda has no way of knowing if there are people on that ship, maybe innocent hostages. He's too smart to accidentally kill them.

Not only that, but the pillar could just as easily bounce off the ship and crush Obi-Wan and Anakin, something Yoda obviously wanted to avoid. It's also not a given that hitting the ship with the pillar would have disabled it. It would have damaged it, sure, but severly enough to keep Dooku from taking off? Who knows?

 

To Mech-E_Jedi, I look at is as that Dooku is much stronger than first assumed. While the wow factor is certainly a part of it, I also see it as that. We know that Obi-wan is strong enough as he lives to the OT and survives a fight with Anakin. We know that Anakin has the potential to be the strongest Force user alive and lived to ROTJ. And that Yoda is a power Force user and live til ROTJ. And that he taught many Jedi, so we see his power. Presenting Dooku as a warrior who can fend of three Jedi in battle, is no small feat and sets him up as an opponet to be beaten in episode 3.

 

augusto...

When does Luke truly become a Jedi?

PALPATINE: "Take your father's place at my side."

LUKE: "No."

He turns off his lightsaber and tosses it away.

LUKE: "You've failed, your highness. I'm a Jedi like my father before me."

Luke throws away his last physical defense and faces a Sith master. He knows there will be repercussions for his defiance, but he trusts totally in the will of Force. Now, it's true, he gets fried, but the Force works in mysterious ways. This is the final catalyst for Vader's turn back to the good side.

Luke's first step on his path to becoming a Jedi is during the battle of Yavin, when he turns off his targeting computer. Sure, he still uses the proton torpedoes, but he has had his first experience with mind over matter. He finishes his journey when he throws away his last "technological crutch" at the end of ROTJ and stands "naked" before Palpatine.

Sure, the lightsaber is the weapon of choice of the Jedi... for those that must still use a weapon.

And finally, yes, I am reading things into the films that aren't blatantly stated. It's my interpretation of the films. Great art should be open for interpretation.

And this is why the Yoda lightsaber scene bothers me so much. The ideas I had held about the heart of the series have been changed, and not for the better, in my opinion. I don't know what the Jedi are striving for anymore. They just seem like police now instead of a great religious order. Yoda is the master because he's great with a saber? He mastered the Force so he could kick butt with a lightsaber, not reach some higher plain of understanding?

Most people seem okay with Yoda using a saber and that's great. You have a different view of the saga than I do. But for the years in between the trilogies, these ideas were the heart of the series for me and now it is gone. I have lost my focus of the saga. I know, I know. It's Lucas' story, he can tell it how he wants to. But it doesn't mean that I can't be dissapointed. I am NOT a basher. Repeat, NOT a basher. I love the SW films. I love the OT. I love the PT. I am just having trouble putting them together right now.

Great debate, BTW.

 

"I'm sorry to have to point this out, but this shows again how people are making conclusions from the PT that are just invented in the viewers's mind."


Your right. The OT is to blame for presenting so many false assumptions about the true history of the GFFA



"They just seem like police now instead of a great religious order. Yoda is the master because he's great with a saber? He mastered the Force so he could kick butt with a lightsaber, not reach some higher plain of understanding? Most people seem okay with Yoda using a saber and that's great. You have a different view of the saga than I do. But for the years in between the trilogies, these ideas were the heart of the series for me and now it is gone. I have lost my focus of the saga. I know, I know. It's Lucas' story, he can tell it how he wants to. But it doesn't mean that I can't be dissapointed. I am NOT a basher. Repeat, NOT a basher. I love the SW films. I love the OT. I love the PT. I am just having trouble putting them together right now."

good post.

"Palpatine is a Jedi?"

Well Maul wasn't a jedi and he used a saber. All the sith use sabers, what makes palaptine so special? Why can't he fight if he has to? The sith are violent, and crafty and have been shown as brutal warriors, if Palpy is the sith master then he must of learned to saber fight.

 

Luke throws away his last physical defense and faces a Sith master. He knows there will be repercussions for his defiance, but he trusts totally in the will of Force. Now, it's true, he gets fried, but the Force works in mysterious ways. This is the final catalyst for Vader's turn back to the good side.


Yes, however the point of that fight it totally different for both sides. In that one, Luke wants to save his father and stop the Emperor, and the Emperor wants to convert Luke to the Dark Side.

In this battle, Dooku wants to escape, and Yoda wants to stop Dooku (and deny the Separatist their key leader).

So the circumstances of the fights are different, so different methods are needed.

When Luke was in the trench, his goal was to destroy the Death Star. Had he tossed his "technological crutches" aside and not use his weapon, he would have doomed the rebellion and allowed the Death Star to continue killing billions of beings. Not a good idea, in my view.

The point was to "trust the force", no become Amish.


He finishes his journey when he throws away his last "technological crutch" at the end of ROTJ and stands "naked" before Palpatine.


Yoda is in full control of the Force when fighting Dooku. He's deflecting his attacks, and letting the Force guide him in his use of his lightsabre. Heck, the complaint about him saving Anakin could also be attributed not only to his compassion but to being guided by the force to save him and Obi-Wan.


And this is why the Yoda lightsaber scene bothers me so much. The ideas I had held about the heart of the series have been changed, and not for the better, in my opinion. I don't know what the Jedi are striving for anymore. They just seem like police now instead of a great religious order.


We are all entlited to our opinions and interpretations, but I think your original understandings were always wrong.

On the Jedi, being the "police" of the Universe (instead of a great religious order); (from ANH)


BEN: An elegant weapon for a more civilized time. For over a thousand generations the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. Before the dark times, before the Empire.


The word "KNIGHTS" and "guardians of peace and justice" don't imply to me an order of monks who just prayed and got crucified to achive peace and justice in the galaxy. Not to mention "GENERAL Kenobi", and "He was the best star-pilot in the galaxy, and a cunning warrior". That implies to me, these "Jedi" were involved in conflicts.

Extra the movies, if you read the original Starkiller story, you see this even more clearly. Again, it's been there all the time.

 

Palpatine: "Ah, a Lightsaber. The weapon of a Jedi."

Sidious only taught it to Maul, so that he could fight the Jedi 1 on 1. Sith Lightning is good, but as Obi-wan and Yoda proved, it's not unbeatable.

They never were a religious order, that was Tarkin's view of them. Obi-wan tells us outright that they were the guardians of peace and justice, said nothing about a religion.

The true GFFA? That's what you thought, but it is what Lucas thinks that is the true GFFA.

Yoda is the Master not just cause of his skills as a swordsman, but with his skill and control over that power. He excels at it and has proven why he was the better instructor for Luke and Anakin.

 

"Palpatine: "Ah, a Lightsaber. The weapon of a Jedi."

So by implication Maul is a jedi.

"Sidious only taught it to Maul, so that he could fight the Jedi 1 on 1. Sith Lightning is good, but as Obi-wan and Yoda proved, it's not unbeatable."

Thats jsut your preconcieved notion, it has no bearing in anything. It makes jsut a s much sense to see Palpatine saber fight as it does Yoda.


"The true GFFA? That's what you thought, but it is what Lucas thinks that is the true GFFA."

Only until the film is released, then it takes on a life of its own with in the audience, the audience is more important then the artist. What Gl intended is irrelevant, all that matters is how the audiences percieved it. Other wsie there would be no reason to release the movies into theatres.

 

augusto...

Maybe I haven't made myself clear. The Jedi ARE warriors. They are the most powerful warriors in the universe. I am NOT saying they are pacifists. I am not saying that by laying down the lightsaber, they are giving up being warriors. When they reach the highest level, the FORCE is the only weapon they would need to do battle.

As for them being a religion... It is never SAID that the Jedi are a religion, but come on, read between the lines. Anakin's explanation of the Jedi do's and dont's aboard the refugee ship are the tenants of any highly deciplined religious sect. What other organization makes its members abstain from marriage or attachments? Religion is the only one. The Jedi belief system that Yoda "preaches" to Luke in ESB is based on several religious philosopies. Not polictical, not judicial... religious. The Jedi are warrior monks. This is implied by Lucas, but never directly stated.

 

bump.

I think the Palpatine and lightsabre discussion is interesting, might deserve it's own thread (could lead to interesting speculation).

I for one would love to see some backstory on Palpatine. Just how in the world did he learn all that stuff, I'm crossing my fingers that we get to see this in Ep. III.

 

Only until the film is released, then it takes on a life of its own with in the audience, the audience is more important then the artist. What Gl intended is irrelevant, all that matters is how the audiences percieved it. Other wsie there would be no reason to release the movies into theatres.

I couldn't disagree with this more. I apologize for digressing from the subject, but I strongly disagree with that statement. A film maker is an artist, like a painter, or a dancer. They pour themselves into their films. Their films become a part of them, hence, they become a part of their films. To wit, Mr. Lucas' is very much important and his intension is very much relevant. Only when you see a film in the manner the filmmaker wants to, can you see it for all it's glory. I don't denie that a film takes on a life of it's own. But the filmmaker gives it that life.

 

As a filmmaker myself I use to agree with everything you and GL are saying.

But i've jsut learned with recent exprience that comprimise and obsticales are important. Thee ae even some directors who set their budgets lower then what they need to make themselves work harder.

And a film without an audience isn't much of anything.

 

<<There are even some directors who set their budgets lower then what they need to make themselves work harder.>>

You mean like George Lucas, who strives to create the films he sees in his head within a budget that will not break the bank?

-Otis

 

Lemon;

When they reach the highest level, the FORCE is the only weapon they would need to do battle.

Fighting with a lightsaber, laser torpedoes, throwing inanimate objects around, and even letting it's intuation led you to inaction are all forms of using the FORCE as their weapon.

The example you provide from ROTJ is a good one (I don't like the one you give from ANH), but in that case, the only thing he could do was to "convert" his father back. His force use was to trust his feelings that his father could be turned, and in the end, that saved the day as Vader hurled the Emperor to his death. The "FORCE" used Vader as the weapon and Luke's trust as it's means. Just like the FORCE guides Yoda when he battles with a lightsaber, or deflects force lighthing. Nowhere is it implied, that using the FORCE means you shouldn't use things that are available to you.


As for them being a religion... It is never SAID that the Jedi are a religion, but come on, read between the lines. ... What other organization makes its members abstain from marriage or attachments? Religion is the only one.


You said you got the feeling they were cops in the PT, that's basically true. They were keepers of peace and justice, KNIGHTs. This is all consistent.

As for them being a religious order, yes they are, but a militaristic one. Just like the Knights Templar where. You didn't see the knights kneeling and praying that God smite their Muslim enemies in the midst of battle and not pick up a sword.

 

But i've jsut learned with recent exprience that comprimise and obsticales are important.

Agreed, although I'm not sure what it has to do with the post I quoted you from. I too consider myself an amateur filmmaker (although I believe we prefer to be called "independent" filmmakers nowadays), hence I know much about the plight of the working filmmaker. But, without getting a little too philosophical, compromise and obstacles are a part of everyday life. And they are everywhere, when it comes to making a film, not just with the budget. What I'm trying to say is that GL has got plenty of obstacles. Whether it be with the script, the actors, the FX, anything. I'm sure they were poping up everywhere.

Thee ae even some directors who set their budgets lower then what they need to make themselves work harder.

Thats really just a personal choice. Directors who do that, do it to disipline themselves. A truly good filmmaker can work with whatever budget they have.

And a film without an audience isn't much of anything.

I never said that there shouldn't be an audience, or that the audience is nothing to a film. But you are using audience in a most brodened term. If a movie is made, and no one but the director sees it, is it nothing? No. Because the director is the audience. I guess I'm just one of those people that doesn't think pleasing the audience is my first priority when making a film. If they like it, fine. Good. Great. If they don't like it, fine. Good. Great. When I make art, I make it for myself, firstly, the audience, secondly. Just my way of looking at it.



EDIT: Again, really sorry for the digression. Great posts Lemon and Augusto.

 

And a film without an audience isn't much of anything

I have to disagree there, unless you use Darth Abaddon's definition of an audience. To me, art is art for art's sake, not for the audience. When I write, I write what I like. If others like it, I'm happy. If no one wants to read it... well, that sucks, but I don't change it. It cheapens the story to me. If Renoir painted a painting, and either no one liked it, or no one saw it, does it make it less of a painting? No. If everyone loved it, does that make it more? No. It is what it is. If everyone thought it meant a certain thing, then he painted a "sequel" painting,for lack of a better word, that the people were disappointed with, they may cry out "No, that's not what I thought it meant!". But that's what it did mean, to him. And though art is open to interpretation, you cant say the artist is wrong. He's the one who did it. I'm rambling. I hope you get my meaning.