"From my point-of-view, the Jedi are evil."

Why, then, isn't Obi-Wan's hand similarly forced when Padme falls from the gunship? Obi-Wan chooses to leave somebody behind, to die for all he knows, in order to catch Dooku. Yoda chooses to let Dooku get away to save two people from death.

Maybe Obi-Wan felt she would be all right. Padme wasn't in immediate danger, so long as the fall didn't kill her. Whereas Anakin and Obi-Wan were when Yoda saved them. But if the code called for Yoda to let them die to get rid of the evil, then he failed I'd say.

Padme's life was not in danger during that particular scene. There's no one there to swoop in for the kill. She and the Clonetrooper fell out of the LAAT and hit the sand. Thus Obi-wan knew that she was fine. Anakin wants to go back, not because she is in danger, but because he wants to comfort her and be there with her when she regains consciousness. This is why Obi-wan tells her that if the shoe was on the other foot, she would go on without him. Note that when she arrives at the hangar, she stops to fire on Dooku rather than rush in to see if Anakin was okay. She placed her duty above her concern for Anakin and Obi-wan. Dooku, on the other hand, actively put Anakin and Obi-wan in danger, knowing full well that Yoda would do something about it. They were about to be crushed, not fall onto a sand dune that wasn't that hard. Nor that far below the LAAT.

Agreed. I was referring though to Obi Wan's comment in ROTS that he would allow those in the Order to die if it meant being able to rid the world of evil or whatnot, but that he had a problem doing that when it came to Anakin (and visa versa). Yoda seemed to agree at that point that Obi Wan was in the wrong when it came to Anakin in that regard. But he had done pretty much the same thing letting Dooku get away in order to save Anakin and Obi Wan. So it does appear that Yoda had the same problem - perhaps on a broader scale.

Exactly. Im glad someone finally said it. Dooku made that support beam fall on Obi-wan & Anakin because he KNEW yoda would save them allowing him to escape. Its funny how people don't turn that into a big thing but whenever anakin so much as shows concern over anyone else its automatically made out to be this big wrongful, selfish, terrible thing.

Im almost positive 90% of the reason lucas put yoda doing that into the movie was to show that even yoda himself will help his friends if they are in danger, even if its at the cost of letting someone like dooku escape. Sometimes its just heroic to save people. Imagine that.

Except, read what I wrote. Yoda saved someone that needed saving. Padme did not need saving. Not when she fell out of the LAAT and not from Anakin's visions. In the latter, she needed to be saved from Anakin.

Yes but im not talking about that so much as im talking about ANY instance throughout the PT where anakin try's to save ANYONE or worries about ANYONE. I'll give a good example:

Yesterday on another site i got into a 4 page long argument with some guy who was trying to say anakin was (and i quote) "a selfish brat/demon seed" for trying to save the RANDOM CLONE TROOPER that got killed in the space battle at the beginning of ROTS. We were not talking about ANY other character, just the clone trooper. Thats it.

I only argued that if anything, anakin wanting to save a perfect stranger who isn't even human at all (a clone) is a perfect example of a selfless hero. Thats all.

Superman is fighting a big unstoppable super-villain yet leaves the fight and gos way out of his way to save random people in the streets and cares DEEPLY when there is someone he couldn't save, even if it was one random person but thats what makes him a hero. Now anakin go's and dose basically the same thing but that somehow makes him a selfish mess.

Heros go out of there way to save people. Yoda did it and he was not wrong for doing it. Anakin did it a lot too, perhaps even too much but that still does NOT make him wrong for doing it.

The jedi of the PT with the exception of Anakin, Gui-gon and Yoda did not do this or even worry about this at all! They didn't do anything about slavery and MANY outer terrible things going on in the galaxy because it was "out of there limits" because the (viciously corrupt) senate says so. Well the true jedi knights of the OLD republic didn't have such limitations and rules and codes and ignorance.

So what im trying to say is the PT jedi were not really "evil" but definitely ignorant and wrong.

I agree that Obi-Wan and Anakin were in more immediate danger than was Padme when she fell out of the gunship, and this may explain why Yoda acted the way he did. Obi-Wan asks Anakin to put duty above emotion by chasing after Dooku and leaving Padme behind. In essence, he asks Anakin to make a rational choice. But Yoda has no time to think, or rationalize, when Obi-Wan and Anakin are about to be crushed, so he may not have made an emotional decision so much as had a natural, emotional reaction. Further, even the rationality of a course of action changes when the danger faced is absolutely immediate.

However, I disagree with your argument that Obi-Wan and Anakin had no legitimate concern for Padme's safety, and disagree even more strongly with your argument that Anakin's only reason for asking to stop the chase is to go back and comfort Padme. No dialogue supports such an unintelligent motivation for Anakin, and nowhere else in any Star Wars movie is he characterized as so unintelligent that he could have such a motivation. It is unbelievable that Anakin would completely ignore his duty as a soldier, not to mention put aside his already brewing hatred of Dooku, just to go comfort a perfectly safe Padme a little earlier than he otherwise would. By contrast, it is believable that Anakin would feel concern for Padme's well being after she fell from a swiftly moving vehicle onto any kind of surface from any height, especially in the middle of a war zone, whether enemies were in the immediate area or not, prompting his desire to stop the ship and rush to her protection. I'm not saying his concerns are justified, only that I can believe he would have them, especially given his protective personality.

And, while I do agree that Anakin and Yoda's respective situations are not identical, I think Lucas intentionally raised similar issues for comparison through the two situations.

If I might ask a question based on real life - it is pertinent - by this reasoning I assume you would agree we (the U.S., NATO, some government or organization) *must* insert themselves into {current world hot spot}?

So why don't we rush in and "do what must be done" to prevent all the perceived suffering in the world - call it North Korea, call it Darfur, call it anything you like?

I'm not addressing this to any one poster, just trying to illustrate how easy it is to say we/they "should" do something because it's right. Do we sometimes do more damage with our sense of moral superiority? Do we trigger worse violence, reprisals, the breakdown of legal or social coercion by such actions?

As for the "random clone" - I would hope in a battle, the objective takes precedent in the sense that, as far we knew in the GFFA, saving the clone trooper may have caused the rescue of the Chancellor to fail. The point of the battle was to save the Chancellor BECAUSE the Republic needed him (supposedly).

But good intentions can be admirable even if impractical, especially if they're not even acted upon because the well intentioned person understands his or her limitations. In the case of the clone Anakin wanted to save, Anakin's heroic impulse was to try to save him, because Anakin tries to save everyone, but Anakin himself realized within seconds, with a little prodding from Obi-Wan, that he couldn't actually go save the clone, so the scene demonstrates Anakin's strength of character to me in every possible way.

I think Obi-Wan comes closest to exemplifying the ideal Jedi. He is not so caught up in codes and missions that he stops caring for others. I think the scene in the Geonosis arena demonstrates his compassion, when everyone else is defending themselves, but he is crouched over a fallen Jedi, trying to heal someone else. But Obi-Wan also deeply understands the importance of duty, which is why he becomes the voice of reason when Anakin has his more impractical impulses toward compassion. I'm not saying Obi-Wan is perfect; just really good.

Tatooine was run by a criminal mob of Hutts, who recognized no authority other than their own. Legal precedence on the desert planet was the codex of brute force.

Why Jinn left Shmi behind had nothing to do with the permission needed from Watto, Jabba or any other Tatooine "legal" autority (no such thing existed there).

Jinn simply placed Anakin's worth above that of his mother. Both were critical elements in the 'Chosen One' equation. Jinn saw one half of the equation, and the council later tried to pound a round peg into a square hole by forcing a boy with serious attachments into a lifestyle that demanded quite the opposite.

The council's refusing to bend from their time-honored (and antiquated) training methods when Anakin and the Sith simultaneously entered the equation proved to be the coup de gace on the Sith rise and Jedi fall.

Qui-Gon tried to get Shmi freed as well; Watto refused. The lack of Republic jurisdiction on Tatooine works against Qui-Gon in a situation of this nature.

Lack of 'legal' jurisdiction didn't seem to stop Mace from trying to kill the Chancellor instead of arresting him (as was the 'official' plan).

The argument was made earlier that the Jedi will often stop doing something 'more important' in order to help one person. Jinn didn't do that. He abandoned Shmi far too readily. The logic of that plot sequence flowed about as well as an ice pack through the Panama Canal.

Watto isn't a Sith in control of the Republic, or too dangerous to be left alive. The Jedi don't have a mandate to impose their will on the entire galaxy.

The Jedi did have the legal authority, which is why Mace says, "In the name of the Galactic Senate". Palpatine just twisted it around since the Jedi couldn't back up their claims, as they were all dead. Even Lucas says Mace is doing the right thing by arresting Palpatine.

Which is not the Jedi way. The Hutts are the legal authority on Tatooine. They have the resources to go to war with the Republic over it. The Republic also relies on the Hutts for their trade routes.

On the contrary, it did.

They did bend the rules by letting him in. Going back to see his mother would not absolve him of his attachments. It would only serve to worsen them. Had he stayed on Naboo, he would not have done what he did.

Which was "the [PT] Jedi way." And THAT is why they failed!

The Jedi did not adapt over 1000 years -- the Sith did.

The Sith knew the Jedi better than the order knew itself. The Sith slowly eroded galactic order just below the radar, and the Jedi went on their "time honored" way (which proved a one-way ticket to oblivion), gradually accepting the growing chaos. They had corrupted themselves by failing to learn that which they needed to learn in order to intuit the existence and later rise of the Sith.

Yoda eventually learns from 'his' mistakes when he decides to place Luke with Owen and Beru instead of training the child himself (in the 'traditional, and obviously wrong, way). This, by default, allowed young Skywalker to form important familial attachments for his looming journey.

The ascended master Jinn 'teaches' Yoda, and later Kenobi, that which they need to 'relearn' in order to train a Jedi with attachments that were once foreign to the knights of the Old Republic in order to defeat a Sith clothed Emperor who exploited Anakin's attachments.

Luke beat fire with fire, while still holding firm to those pure Jedi values that lay at the heart of the once proud and valiant order. This is what helped to save Anakin -- faith in his son, who despite his attachments embodied all Anakin knew that he should have been as a Jedi.

How is it obviously wrong? Luke would have been trained from infancy, unlike Anakin, and we know this worked out fine for 99.9% of the Jedi.

Star Wars fans have been having this argument, and variants of it, for years now, and I doubt we will every STOP having it. Personally, I think part of the problem is that we have the movies, and then we have what GL and others have said ABOUT the movies, in interviews, written pieces, etc. And I don't think the two are easily reconciled.

Most SW fans know Lucas has made comments about the Jedi being stubborn, or unchanging, or even corrupt... and SOME (esp those inclined to like Anakin) have taken these comments and pointed to just about every Jedi action, at one time or another, as "evidence" of Jedi failings. At various times, for example, I have heard that the Jedi were too involved in politics, and at others, that they weren't active enough in stopping the rise of Palpatine to political power. In fact, I have heard just about every Jedi action critiqued from BOTH sides, with each (contradictory) argument ultimately saying "AHA - HERE is that flaw Lucas was talking about".

Well...respectfully, I think that the average NON-SW fan, just watching the movie, won't see it that way (that the corruption of the Jedi lead to the rise of the Sith)... in large part because it isn't there... IN the movies. Or if it IS there, it is poorly expressed, poorly constructed, poorly presented. And no, I am not a card-carrying Lucas basher. I think the average person, watching the movies, will (correctly) see the Jedi as an admirable force for Good, who are fallible. I think they will see the Sith as a corrupting force for Evil. And I think they will see Anakin as a tragic "hero" in the old school sense, a person with a great capacity for doing good, who also has within him a great capacity for doing evil (rage, anger, insecurity) and who "falls", giving in to his darker impulses, before being redeemed by his son. And they will see that because, as non-SW fans, they haven't been "prepped" by the real time comments from Lucas and others. They simply see what is on the screen.

Perhaps Lucas' biggest failing, if Jedi corruption is at the heart of the story, is that Palpatine comes to power through almost wholly political means. Think about it...if there were NO Jedi in the SW universe, would Palps NOT have come to power? If anything, he would have come to power MORE quickly. The Jedi's biggest failing is that they don't detect him sooner, not that their arrogance and stodginess HELPS him rise. The movies themselves simply don't make the case that it is the flaws in the Jedi that allow the Sith to rise.

So...sorry, to me, Anakin's comments about the Jedi being evil are just Anakin in full self-pitying, self-justifying mode....

Shadow

Going back would not stop his fears. Seeing her all the time wouldn't stop them. He was around Padme and he still had them. He had to train himself to let go of his fear, something he wasn't willing to do.

Raising the Jedi from birth isn't wrong. The only wrong part is not being with their families and even then, that doesn't stop them from turning if they choose to. Look at the Jedi before and since then. Jacen was raised by his family and he still became a Sith. There are no guarantees in life. And as we see, even Yoda didn't think it was wise letting Luke grow up with the Lars, when he says that he is too old to begin the training. Luke's rushing off re-enforced that notion. It nearly cost them. Luke didn't beat the Sith by fighting fire with fire. He beat them by loving his father unconditionally and showing him great compassion. Something the Jedi could do, but it isn't always a guarantee for stopping them either.

^^^
RE: Jacen -- I stick to the PT (with OT references) on the PT boards. The rest is . . . EU.

And I never said raising Jedi from birth was wrong, only that adapting to unusual circumstances that had clouded their vision was wrong, that Jinn was wrong regarding Shmi (and tolerating slavery). The council was wrong in not adapting to the changing galaxy around them, and to the Chosen One that was brought before them.

Oh, and Luke's did fight fire with fire. He used his attachments to defeat the Emperor, who surely thought that Luke's love for Anakin and his compassion for his friends would make him easy pickings.

Luke had attachments but was able to "let go." He lost his aunt and uncle to the storm troopers, but moved on of his own free will to join Kenobi. He lost Kenobi to Vader, yet pursued his destiny and learned the ways of the force. He lost Yoda to the force, but became a Jedi none-the-less. But he was not about to lose his father, contrary to the advice of 'ascended master' Obi-Wan. Luke did obey Yoda . . . he did confront Vader again, and showed his father what a true Jedi acted like.

Luke trusted his feelings, as Kenobi advised him to do in ANH. His feelings knew that which no other possibly could . . . that there was still good in Vader. Luke felt it on Bespin, and he knew from the point of his rescue by Leia what he must do.

As the dying Anakin tells his Jedi son . . . "you were right, Luke!"

Yeah, but when you consider the Jedi, sometimes they seem like sociopaths. Or at the very least, omniscience excuses everything.

But it's still true. And as I said, long before the era of the PT Jedi, they had families and attachments and still fell to the dark side. Having families does not mean that they won't go to the dark side. If anything, it increases the odds.

Attachment=selfish love.

Compassion=selfless love.

Luke saves his father because he loved him selflessly. Not selfishly. Anakin saves Luke because his son taught him compassion, which he confused.

"The Jedi are trained to let go. They're trained from birth," he continues, "They're not supposed to form attachments. They can love people- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith. But they can't form attachments. So what all these movies are about is: greed. Greed is a source of pain and suffering for everybody. And the ultimate state of greed is the desire to cheat death."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith; page 213

"It's about a good boy who was loving and had exceptional powers, but how that eventually corrupted him and how he confused possessive love with compassionate love. That happens in Episode II: Regardless of how his mother died, Jedi's are not supposed to take vengeance. And that's why they say he was too old to be a Jedi, because he made his emotional connections. His undoing is that he loveth too much."

--George Lucas, Rolling Stone Magazine Interview; June 2005.

That is what Lucas says on the matter.

In the 2005 E Online! ROTS Special, Lucas also stated that the Jedi were "corrupted." They failed to recognize the changes occurring around them over the yeas and did not adapt accordingly. They did not see the rise of the Sith. They took orders from a Sith as generals.

Why exactly did Anakin go from that lovable kid in TPM to the snotty brat in AOTC and then the evil Darth Vader in ROTS? The Jedi certainly did not work to address Anakin's obsession with his mother's condition. As cited above, the tolerated slavery -- the law as some say -- and yet violate the law by trying to kill Palpatine instead of arresting him.

At this point, the order and its teachings were failed doctrine. It was obsolete, an ancient vestige of what once was. It needed a Chose One to right the ship and regain course, meaning the Jedi were incapable of doing so themselves, despite their altruistic and honorable ways.

The only person who seemingly showed compassion to Anakin's plight, aside for Padme, was Palpatine. Of course, he played Anakin like a fiddle, but was only able to do so because the Jedi ceded Anakin to him by ignoring his quite normal emotional concerns.

Because the Jedi were blinded, they acted in ways that led Anakin to think the order might indeed be evil, as Palpatine was manipulating him to believe. Secrets in the council chambers, things that could not go on record -- like spying on the Chancellor. Going to arrest Palpatine then deciding to kill him instead of putting him on trial.

Sure, we know Palps was a Sith, but in a democracy religious practices should not impart any ill will against an elected official. It was the Jedi who drew that sabers first in threatening manner, enabling the clever Sith in disguise, allowing him to "do what must be done," what he had waited his entire life to do. A failed Jedi order allowed the Sith to climb to into the Emperor's throne. And we are to believe this order was above the failing of Anakin? Anakin's fall was simply a manifestation of the Jedi order's fall from grace.

The fall of the Empire does not rest solely upong Anakin's shoulders. He had plenty of help within the once hallowed halls of the Jedi temple.

Yeah, but GL also said the Dark Side clouds all, so the Jedi can't be faulted for not spotting a Sith in their midst. It's not like they weren't looking for him.

How do you know they didn't address his mother fixation? As we saw in AOTC, anytime anyone brought up issues Anakin had with his feelings, he shut them down and shut them out and changed the subject. You can't help someone with psychological issues who doesn't want to be helped and indeed doesn't think anything is wrong with them.

The Jedi were part of the Republic. Tattooine with its slavery society was outside the Republic. If they interfered with a planet outside their jurisdiction are you going to claim they 'violated the law' then too?

You can't have it both ways.

Well, that theory only works if that's what you think the prophecy means. The Force isn't just about the Jedi, it's about the entire universe, so based on your idea of the prophecy, the GFFA was obsolete and needed to regain its course.

They didn't ignore Anakin's needs, Anakin shut them out because they weren't telling him what he wanted to hear - they didn't play up to his ego, which is what Palpatine did with his so-called "compassion".

So you're saying Anakin can't think enough for himself to get out of a paper bag.

Wow, scary. Spying on the Chancellor..but hey wait, didn't the Chancellor put Anakin on the Jedi Council to spy for him? Hmmm, sounds like you got a double-standard going there.

They were within their rights - representing the Senate - to confront him. They were arresting him. You know - to stand trial? But what about Palpatine? It was his duty as a citizen to go along peacefully and decide things in a court of law. Did he? Or did he pull a weapon in return and kill 3 of the peacekeepers almost immediately when they weren't attacking him and force the Jedi