PT Here!, Here!, To Grievous!!!!!!.

Well since we see Griev taking Anakin and Obi-Wan's sabers without fighting or killing them, it is just as likely that he took those from dead Jedi that his soldiers killed.
That he makes a point of taking them and bragging about it, this to me suggest that he wants to build a reputation of being fearsome. If he had been this big Jedi killer, his reputation would speak for itself, he would not have to go "Look how many lightsabers I have, I have really killed many Jedi, please be scared of me!!"

I found Griev to be a pointless waste of time. Neither interesting nor threatening. His screen time should have gone to Dooku, who was better at both.
Griev was all talk and no delivery.

The opening crawl says that the seps, who are lead by Dooku, are causing problems. So much so that the Jedi can't keep the peace anymore. So they sound like the aggressors.
Then Padme accuses Dooku of trying to murder her. While her accusation makes no logical sense based on what she would know at the time, it paints Dooku in an even worse light.
When we finally meet him we learn that yes, he was behind the attempt on Padme.
So he is a murderer. He also is building up an army in secret to attack a weak and defenseless republic and enforce his demands. He was even planning to build a DS, a weapon with terrible destructive powers. Then we learn that he is a Sith and has turned to the dark side, ie evil.
I will agree that an effort was made to make Dooku's motivations and allegiance ambiguous but that failed. Had Dooku been in TPM then that might have worked.
But as is, Dooku is shown as being nothing more than just an evil bad guy. The potential was there for more but that was squandered.

Well he runs a lot. When we first meet him be brags and boasts and then things go badly and he runs. This is apparently something he is known to do. Obi-Wan finally catches up with him and Griev again boast and brags for a little while, gets beaten quickly and runs away again.

Take Vader in ANH. He told Tarkin that he would face Obi-Wan ALONE. He didn't want help, he was confident that he could handle Obi-Wan by himself.
Maul confronts two Jedi plus several guards by himself, no needing help there.
That Griev only stands and fights when he has a massive advantage doesn't speak highly of him.

[/QUOTE]

The micro series made a lot of character into Gods and would not work on film. I agree there.

But if you want Griev to be seem as fearsome, have him kill one or two Jedi in a straight up fight.
Like have him be present in AotC and show him take out several Jedi in the arena.
That would provide some tension when Obi-Wan finally goes up against him. We know what Griev can do and realize that Obi-Wan is in for a fight. But as is, Obi-Wan has not a care in the world and beats Griev very easily. So Griev is not presented as a threat, at least not one we are meant to take seriously.
Take the first Matrix film or the first Terminator film. In both films, Smith and the Terminator is shown as quite unstoppable and this builds tension and fear for the protagonists and how they would overcome this fearsome foe.
Dooku's power was shown when he moped the floor with Obi-Wan and Anakin in AotC and was able to hold his own quite well against Yoda. But then RotS wasted that character quickly.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Samuel Vimes Fair points, but i disagree

Seeing that he is in the middle of a huge battle, it could be that he rather wants to escape with palpatine first, then when he is in seperatist territory duel the jedi.If he wants his guards to kill Obi Wan and Anakin, why not have them executed immediatly?

Im not saying Dooku wasnt evil, im just saying he´s not "pure" evil.

Well, both vader and Maul are also powerful with the force, while Grievous is a non force user . Maul also never fought with any of the guards and Vader got accompanied by stormtroopers when the duel escalated to the hangar.

I think the fight on the Utapau plattform shows Grievous as a somewhat unstoppable threat. Obi Wan doesnt have time to concentrate with the force which gives Grievous a slight advantage the entire fight

 

CIS Droid. It shows how impotent he is as a character. We're talking about the leader of the separatist droid army, and he can't even control whats going on five feet in front of him. When he escapes (I think) is supposed to show his cowardice, even though it is one of the smartest things anybody does in the entire movie!
Also talking about Count Dock's morality, I think in AotC he definitely lies in the area of grey morality, but his motives just aren't well explored due to lack of time. It's mentioned he's a political idealist and honourable, so why has he taken this course of action? I think GL liked things a bit too black-and-white as well, with all the Jedi having to be indisputably good. Make Mace Windu a grey character and you have a much more interesting one.

I'd agree GG was overpowered in CW '03, but so was everybody and everything. When Luke tries using the force in Empire its a real physical effort, while in CW everybody (although much more experienced) seems to be able to practically wave a hand and part the Red Sea. The thing is in CW Lucas (he wrote it, did he not?) built him up as being a strong opponent, and he was a big let-down. I don't put much stock in what Lucas says 'he intended' because he has a history of being economical with the truth. He could have changed his intention at any point (I once found a scan of one of Warren Fu's original concept drawings and it was dated 02 or 03. Two to three years is a lot of time to prevaricate over a character) And even if he intended for him to be e weak character from the start it was the wrong approach and somebody should have overruled him. The way he was depicted in the film was a big middle finger to Tartakovsky and his team and to all the fans who were looking forward to seeing a great villain.

Samuel Vimes you wouldn't happen to be the same Samuel Vimes from cricketweb would you?

 

KaleeshEyes I think its a bit of an overreaction saying its a middle finger to Tarakovsky and the fans. And saying someone should have overruled him is odd.

Maybe i dont care so much that he was changed because i was never that big of a fan of the micro series version of Grievous. Both Grievous and Durge in that series felt both overpowered and dull. Grievous was a little bit better than Durge because he had some lines of dialouge ( and the Dooku training scene) but i dont like villains that are portrayed so powerful that they are faster than the force. Speaking of which, barely any jedi used the force against Grievous in the micro series, which was odd. I mean, there was that one scene with the Ithorian, but even when Grievous is vulnerable in that awkward, putting your hands in your chest form they just run away.

 

CIS Droid. Well considering the amount of disappointment and derision I have seen associated with his film character, I don't think it's too far off.
I don't have any problem with villains being 'more powerful than the force'. Their use of the force shouldn't make the Jedi omnipotent, and I think if brute physical strength can overcome a Jedi's use of the force, then so be it.

 

Lucas didn't directly write any of the Clone Wars.

 

Then somebody got some correcting to do on a certain wiki-based site. It lists 'written by George Lucas' for every episode, which seemed odd when he don't otherwise seem to have had much say in the series.

If ya wanna know why I get my info from Wikipedia, it's because its easy

 

And i disagree, i belive a jedi shouldnt be all powerful, but villains that are non force user being more powerful than the force is stepping over the line.

 

Why is it stepping over the line?

 

KaleeshEyes because its quite frankly, ridiculous. Im okay with non force users being able to kill jedi, but only extremely powerful force users should be able to do what Grievous does in the micro series. If Grievous would have been a powerful force user before becoming a cyborg i wouldnt have a problem with him as more powerful than the force, but he´s not.

 

CIS Droid. Don't forget everything in Clone Wars is exaggerated, not just Grievous. Why can Mace Windu jump as high as the buildings on Coruscant, something nobody comes close to doing in the films? I think he served a purpose in showing that determined application of physical force can be used to overcome application of the force, if in the right situation. He was exaggerated, but so were the others.

 

Oh i agree, Mace was much worse, and i know that everyone is exaggerated in the show, but im not sure how to judge micro series Grievous if what he does on screen is an exaggeration of how it really happend

 

CIS Droid
Part of the back-story changes that I refer to are based on statements by T.C.W. producers, and they are what has leaked into the 'canon' section on the Star Wars Wikia, so I am assuming that they are what 'count' currently.

This still doesn't address the problem of the lightsaber being their own personal weapon, if there are still spares lying round for them to use.

In the films, there are references to a grey rather than black character, but we then see him working with Sidious near the end of A.O.T.C., and with that, any lighter areas to his character (which are only given through exposition by other people) can be perceived as just a front covering a more definitely evil person.

Which ultimately don't figure into the fight. He ultimately decides to take a harder and stupider route instead, and there has been nothing in the film to persuade us that he might be able to stand up to Obi-wan.

It was, from what one can tell, only not Lucas' intention inasmuch as he had not decided on Grievous' character when he first appears in Clone Wars. If Lucas had intended Grievous to be a 'moustache-twirler' from the start, he would have been written that way in Clone Wars.
In regards to power, all characters in that series are over-powered in comparison to the films, but not necessarily in the context of the cartoon. Grievous' character was not down-toned commensurate with how all of the other characters would change between the cartoon and the film; rather, a different character was inserted into the film instead.
I also take issue with the idea that Lucas was necessarily 'the creator' of the character, given how others worked on designing him, and how he was really first created as a character (or at least presented to an audience) by Tartakovsky's series.
Just because the author of a terrible book says he intended it to be like it was, does not make the book good. Lucas' being the creator (more-or-less) of a character does not mean Lucas cannot mishandle him (after all, has one not heard all the arguing over the P.T.?). I have argued here, as have others, that Lucas' characterisation is wrong because it fails to give Grievous much of a character or establish him as the threat implied in the opening crawl or the Jedi Council's wanting him dead. Furthermore, I have argued that his visual character is not reflected in how he acts as a person, and this contradicts how pretty much every other character is written in the Star Wars films.

 

CIS Droid. I'd just go by relative levels or something like that, but it's not easy to link the series and the film. CW Grievous was designed to be somebody who, thanks to his mechanical nature, was a non-force using match for the Jedi, and should have appeared as such in the film, with Kenobi's defeating him showing his (Kenobi's) strength as a Jedi.

 

The creators of TCW says that in the episode Lair of Grievous the backstory is so subtle that you can choose which one you prefer.

Thats not the point, he still has 10 000 droids as backup if Kenobi gets the upper hand.

And how did the micro series give Grievous more character than RotS? Him being the leader of the CIS is threat enough, and the movie even says that the senators fear him, not the jedi.

So, because Lucas didnt design Grievous himself, hes not the creator? I guess most of star wars belongs to the designers then. And no, just because he was introduced in the micro series does not mean Tartosky is more of a cretor of the character then Lucas

Visual character does in your opinion not match up to the character presented, meaning the character gets contradicted?

 

Gawd I love this place.

You can't have a thread about celebrating anything in the PT without people barreling over to explain in a well argued thesis why actually it is a lame waste of time, to be countered by opposing thesis in defence.

Every thread ends this way, reading like some complex law case, because there must be an app that sends a message whenever there is a positive thread running that needs bashing, or the same old hands must be constantly vigilant for any signs of mutual celebration. The newer members of the forums think this is just the bash center anyway...what else can it be for?

Ahhh...never mind. Most kids love you GG, but I'm afraid you are just more miserableness, fodder for jaded adults to pick apart.

 

SeventySeven Thanks for the condescension.
I like General Grievous, he's my favourite SW character, but I find his film depiction very wrong. And you can't have a complex discussion about character? Why bother with the forum then?

Yes, this would have been a better approach. I think (maybe) on Utapau there should have been two or three or more Jedi (more logical as well) and we get to see Grievous kill them, then Kenobi defeats him after a protracted battle. Would enhance both Grievous and Kenobi's character and make us more emotionally invested in the scene.

 

Anyway, on a lighter note, I present to you the *real* reason why General Grievous hates Jedi.

 

That explains everything

 

Indeed it does. Such an experience would scar a kid for life.

 

sorry KaleeshEyes wasn't directed at you

 

CIS Droid

Yes, but combined with the new 'canon' treatment, and also statements by TCW producers, indicate that the newer, shallower treatment is the one that the Star Wars producers would use, and by extension, prefer.

I expect this one will keep going in circles; to go back a little bit, I am arguing that the decision of Grievous to duel Obi-wan rather than simply have the droids kill him immediately does not line up with the idea that he is weak or cowardly.

Yes; but unlike in Clone Wars, in the film, we don't see him do anything that would make him a threat. In the film (and T.C.W.), the Republic usually appears to have the upper hand anyway, so he effectively become the leader of a weak, impotent organisation (as shown in the film itself, which contradicts it own opening crawl). Furthermore, even if the Jedi don't consider him a threat, for story-writing purposes, they should. The reason is that it is the Jedi who we see the most of in these films, not the senate. If our main characters don't consider him a threat, then there is no tension in interaction with him.

I am arguing that Lucas cannot be considered the sole creator of a character, and that one has to consider the input of others, and how they might differ from or even be better than Lucas' ideas. This is because whenever people bring up problems with Grievous' characterisation in the film, defenders always respond with a reflexive, "But he's Lucas' character, he can do what he wants." I can't speak for the actual people, but if I had worked on designing Grievous and saw how he was used in the film, I would get a little upset at what a wasted opportunity he was.

What I am saying is that Grievous' character in the film is not unified with his looks. By visual character, I mean the impression his appearance would leave upon somebody, and what one could derive from that. The mismatch between his dangerous looks and non-threatening character is not found amongst other characters in Star Wars, certainly not amongst the bad guys.

 

Well considering I have about 60% of the most argumentative posts in this thread, it could've been

 

Pulling a succesfull attack on the Republic most important world and kidnapping the leader of the republic is a big enough threat for me.

The senate is still important, and we see enough of it in the movies.

Not found on other characters in star wars? Boba Fett looks pretty dangerous, but in the movies hes not threatening at all, and im pretty sure he´s supposed to be a bad guy.

 

Well, I am not exactly bashing Grievous directly, but I am trying to argue that he 'deserved' better than what we saw in the film. Other people's work shows what a threatening and/or complex character he could have been, and I consider it a great loss that none of this was found in the film; furthermore, some people take it upon themselves to defend this poor characterisation.

Furthermore, despite my dislike for the P.T., General Grievous is far-and-away my favourite character from Star Wars, but this has required skirting around much of the film's depiction of him or making rationalisations based on works outside the film (and since 2014, the extended universe). In particular, I love how he looks in the film (which has the best visual design), and would venture so far as to call it beautiful if it didn't make me sound creepy. And he is brilliant in Clone Wars, particularly as I did grow to dislike the Jedi in the P.T., and Grievous gives them a much deserved hiding. The fact is that, in my own mind, I have built him up to be a powerful and meaningful character, and consider it disappointing that Lucas didn't do the same. And I consider it sad that he is not more widely or fondly remembered, because I believe he should be.