PT "Sith" Happens-- 10 Years After Its Release, How Does ROTS Hold Up?

No - all of you are smug, only I can also back it up with being right.

That all sounds very relativistic and formulaic, but in concrete terms, your way of reading stories is inventing things to make them coherent - mine is judging them for being coherent or not.

Also, you miss a lot of important inconsistencies (or the imporance thereof) that I don't

JUST YOUR OPINION, MAAAAN

I can be creative, and in fact have been more creative than you on this very thread, while still understanding that what I come up with is not what the movie came up with - or that it can't be derived from the movie.
You're being creative without understanding that difference.

So, still, the difference between us is understanding.




So let's sum it up:
If you know what dramatic consistency is, the incredible lack thereof in the prequels with the classics is obvious - as is the conlusion that the consistent version hasn't been filmed yet.
And if you value dramatic consistency, you'll consider Revenge of the Sith, or the prequels in general, to work better if not intended to be consistent with the classics - and the OT to work better if the prequels aren't considered.

If you don't, that's the reason you think they're all seamless, or think there shouldn't be a seamless version. When you encounter people who disagree with you on that, that's because they care about storytelling and you don't.

 

Sorry. I just gotta...

Irony, where is thy sting?

This is a giant red herring.

None of the Star Wars movies are entirely consistent with one another. Nor was that the intent going in.

If, on the other hand, your contention is that the prequels have a different look, tone, and feel to the originals -- well, alright. They were designed that way; and I think few will disagree with you on that broader point.

It gets very murky, and a bit ridiculous, when you insist that "the consistent (or a consistent) version hasn't been filmed yet". As stated, that is a red herring, because all the Star Wars movies have crinkles and contradictions.

I'm also not sure you've really specified what "dramatic consistency" -- as if this is some special breed of consistency -- actually is. You're trying to define things your way and are looking at the series through a narrow lens. And then you're saying that anyone who takes a different view is wrong by default.

You'll never get the films to match up because they simply weren't intended to. They're meant to tell a story that is an interpolation of their discrete components. It's like a series of paradoxes. A more reductive (but perhaps more interesting) view is to say that it's a commentary on propaganda and a cinematic treatise on the emergence of history and myth.

Which is true? Anakin joined Obi-Wan on an "idealistic crusade"? Or that he followed Qui-Gon because he won his freedom and had dreams of ending slavery, exploring the universe, and writing his own destiny? I mean, they're both kinda true and false at the same time, aren't they? But I see the latter as more complex than the former.

The former may provoke certain emotions in a viewer: images and feelings. But the latter adds complexity by reifying those basic words in an unexpected way. Anakin went on a crusade with Obi-Wan by serving as his padawan and serving on missions throughout the galaxy. He was motivated by idealism; even if he wasn't on a "crusade", per se.

So the prequel trilogy subverts vague allusions stitched into its progenitor (which is also, paradoxically, the one it begets). It's the storyteller playing with truth and meaning in a fun and somewhat radical way. Look at how sneaky both Palpatine and the old Obi-Wan are with their Young Skywalker supplicants. Ultimately, the meaning may be nothing more than, "Don't trust the tall tales of grey-haired men". I guess that would include Lucas, himself.

 

Well, the comeback just writes itself, doesn't it.

That goes against the whole "seamless saga omg" even more than my thesis!
IV and V are pretty consistent. I can't think of any inconsistency right now btw, but whatever there are, are incomparable to those VI introduced, and it got exponentially worse from there.

Well, look tone and feel are one thing, but then something like the lightsaber styles already works towards shifting them apart.

It's somewhere in the teal deer above... trust me. I got this.

Like wow.


SW may have been post modern in its mix of genres and influences, but its storytelling is way on the "classic conventional" side of the spectrum.

As I said - different continuities.

The missions don't count as crusade, and the war was self-defense.
And what you're doing there with "idealism" is just word games - "idealistic crusade" means a very specific thing: going out there to change something according to your ideals.
This didn't happen in I-III.

He was motivated by idealism to do the podrace, but not to come with Qui-Gon -.that was more ambition, adventure, calling or whatnot.

Tawdelly raaadical!

Even Palpatine was "bending the truth" most of the time, however, the point was that he was obviously lying, and the way he did that, choosing the lies that would fit Anakin's biases and interests, was part of a solid narrative structure itself.
This isn't the case in the OT, where "Ben's truth" is part of the structure, and stripping the ground from under it ruins that structure unless given another structure in return.*

Also, Palpatine lying to Vader like that, is ALREADY going against the OT - where it was all about seduction and temptation, and no hint of anyone being confused about what side they're on.

*Aaaaaand, I'm way ahead of you mate. I've already brought up the "indoctrination theory", however, ROTJ did away with that with the whole "point of view" thing.
Had Obi-Wan, at any point, been established as a manipulator and a liar (in important contexts, not bull****ting with patrol officers and bureaucrats), this would've helt water. He wasn't.
Palpatine, on the other hand, is nothing BUT an indoctrinator and a liar, and been this throughout the entire trilogy.

Much more honest in VI, but still has the trickster in him.

 

No better time to bring this back up.

 

Says who?

The franchise owner decides what's canon, not random people on the internet.

 

oh yea?

 

So, no support for "Obi-Wan wasn't one of them"?

Why did Luke find Dagobah familiar? Why was it implied that he recalled Dagobah somehow... like something out of a dream... before actually "discovering clairvoyance"? Does it matter? WHO CARES

 

I know that is why I brought up the Yoda/Obi Wan training quotes. Obi Wan was trained by Yoda. Yoda TRAINED Jedi for 800 years. Put 2 and 2 together.

These were also statements made by the characters in the films themselves. No surprise here. When Obi Wan talks about Darth Vader being a pupil of his to Luke, was there any reason to doubt that Darth Vader was a pupil of Obi Wan? I personally don't thinks so. So when I see people whine about Obi Wan being trained by Yoda, why isn't the same thing done for Darth Vader and Obi Wan?

When you look at the OT by itself we only hear about Vader being Obi Wan's pupil. But does anyone whine over this? No. Pretty funny I think. If people can accept Vader being Obi Wan's apprentice, than why is it so difficult for people to accept Obi Wan being trained by Yoda?

 

Midichlorians are 100% consistent with the OT. They are also 100% consistent with the PT, being from the PT. Feel free to show how midichlorians are inconsistent with anything in either trilogy, including themselves.

The lightsaber must be one of those things that really looks like a good talking point. But looks can be deceiving. When you're a hammer everything looks like a nail.

Let's examine the options here. Ignoring the PT, did Anakin already have children, or know that he was going to have children, by the time he turned to the dark side? Not knowing Luke had a sister until late in ROTJ rules out the twins being born before his turn.

And if we check the ROTJ script: When your father left, he didn't know your mother was pregnant.

So if we're forced to assume Obi-Wan's lightsaber comment in ANH is a reference to a conversation that really happened, as opposed to just another lie, then the only option we're really left with is to assume that it was a conversation about a hypothetical or future child. And if that's the case, in what way does the PT "contradict" the OT on this point? By leaving out an obsessively tacked-on scene showing that specific quip on Anakin's part, one which would have been irrelevant to the immediate narrative being told by ROTS and useless in moving forward the plot of that film? By assuming the audience lacks the power to imagine that said conversation happened offscreen sometime between TPM and ROTS?

Tea parties and their talking points... same old, same old.

 

Don't title an "How does it HOLD UP?" if you didn't like it in the first place.

 

This is hilarious.

@IGrandeAnhoop you misunderstand were I'm coming from. I'm neither passionatly defending, not supporting the dicontinuities in these films.

I'm pointing out the ridiculous position of getting in a twist about fantasy versus reality. The facts are that ANH was not made with Darth Vader being Luke's father. Read around the making if the films. When he came up with the notion he had to carefully think back and work out if that made a difference to the film he just made. Of course it did, it made nonsense of a lot of the script and some of the action.
He basically sacrificed continuity to shoe horn in his great reveal - but he figured he could get away with it. From that point on the die was cast.

Luckily it mostly worked - but he did it again with the sister thing. This time groans from the script department.
A lot of ANH and ESB - EXCLICITLY - played on the "who will she go with?" with Leia - the hero or the rogue? Did George care about this or the kiss scene? Apparently not, so more tortuous exposition and lines awkwardly delivered to wrap the whole shebang up from a "certain point of view".

So anyone waiting for the new films should have reminded themselves of what kind of guy Lucas is. Changing his mind, shoe horning ideas in, changing and developing basic concepts is how he worked from the outset - from as soon as he got his money back and everyone in the world liked his film.

I mean do you think the guy is literally stupid? Do you think he hasn't seen and watched the films thousands of times? Do you think he forgot what was said in ROTJ? He new the deal, and decided consciously to ignore it, the same as he decided to ignore that Ben said his father was killed by Vader.

Why? Who really knows - except that he wanted a different point of view. Why? I don't know, he's a little but cavalier with continuity - that's his style, maybe as people on here continually point out, it's better to constantly re-think things than have your story set in stone.

How you can argue this is something that just started with the prequels is beyond comprehension. I guess it's like groaning about the Gungan army and forgetting that this is the same guy that finished the film before it with an army of bears.

 

There was an idealistic bent to his ambition: that the world was amenable to his will. He tragically discovered the limits of that personal philosophy years later.

And, again, he had some specific ideas in mind, like coming back to Tatooine and freeing all the slaves.

He didn't quite achieve what he set out to do (or in the way he imagined), but a frustrated sense of idealism, in my opinion, has always lay at the core of the Anakin character.

No, see, this is where I saw you going wrong earlier.

You hazily define an archetypal kind of "dramatic consistency" (or whatever), in your examples of Palpatine's manipulation of Anakin and Vader revealing Luke's parentage, and then aver that other examples (Leia's memories, say, or Obi-Wan's words to Luke being undermined, in ROTJ) are of an inferior kind.

That isn't really right, in my view, because not everything in Star Wars is pitched at the same frequency. The same shock tactic is never re-used. Dramatic revelations themselves vary and occur on different scales simultaneously. I like that, myself. You don't.

You can't weave a standard from it by adducing this piece or that. It's a very big tapestry. I think it's a tad belittling, personally, to expect everything to have the same foundation or follow-through. I'm reminded of arguments that TPM is an aberration because of its narrative structure, or because Jar Jar's role diminishes in the remaining prequels, or there's too big a gap between TPM and AOTC, or what have you. Essentially, some people look to the OT, and if the OT didn't do it, they argue that those things being done in the PT must make it some kind of failure by default.

Whether Obi-Wan lies or manipulates as much as Palpatine -- or shouldn't lie at all -- is down to viewer discretion. The same applies to Leia's memories. It's left to interpretation. Obviously, people are going to notice some of these things and sometimes cry foul, but it goes with the territory. I see nothing inherently difficult in any of it. I'm just a bit perplexed at this insistence that everything line up a particular way and have a certain explanation attached to or rationale behind it; or it's apparently no good.

Lying, how? You just randomly tossed this in. I'm curious. If you're referring to Palpatine's seduction of Anakin in ROTS, well, for one thing, it's interesting you don't consider it a seduction (apparently).

And no hint of confusion? So Palpatine never confused Luke one bit about which side he was on when he tried to pull him from the Jedi side; and goaded him to strike him down in order to save his friends?

As you seem to acknowledge, Palpatine is a shrewd and liberal manipulator. He uses what he can to ensnare his prey. Why wouldn't he diabolically bring Anakin to the Dark Side with a bag of promises and blur the line between the Jedi and the Sith?

How else, in fact, was he meant to reel in someone who had been matriculated into a religious order and told the other side was the greatest existential threat to the universe? Obviously, he was going to imply the two weren't so estranged, and make the Sith more appealing to an increasingly-desperate Anakin.

Vader himself manifests some confusion and indecision in ROTJ. But then, you seem obsessed with the canonical purity of the first two films, so perhaps, if you reduce the OT by 1/3, it's then easier to strawman and pillory the PT (except when you want to bash the birth scene and so you then bring in Leia's memories from ROTJ)?

If your contention is that Star Wars moved away from its rather limited starting parameters, well, yes, it did. The story evolved over time. The simple difference is that Lucas told it in reverse and didn't feel bound to a paint-by-numbers history.

And yes, Star Wars is quite abstract, actually. It has a simple surface; but many complex interlocking pieces. It doesn't have to be over-complicated, though. It's simple enough that a child can understand it; and complex enough to absorb adults. Hence the genius of it.

 

Where did he get trained by Yodan?

I think the implication was that he'd already been here, maybe as an infant - or that it was a vision or dream of some sorts, which would make more sense than with Leia considering this place is a spiritual destination for him.

And yes, the fact that this was never followed up on (hey, TFA maybe?!) was one of the balls the subsequent movies dropped.

You're confused.
Obi-Wan trained by Yoda + other Jedi trained by Yoda = Obi-Wan and other Jedi trained by Yoda. WOW.

So there's your 2+2 - what now?

No, and the prequels didn't even retcon that!

You mean retcon that too? So I-III don't show Darth Vader trained by Ob1?

Wow.

Well, the Jedi could've tested Palpatine for Midichlorians.

But that's the only logical inconsistency, and it doesn't matter much.
To put it simply, it plays no role in anything but measuring Anakin's talent - the most obvious follow-up to that Qui-Gon scene, is when Anakin gets his death visions, and it's played as a regular "psychic" vision, the whole idea that he "listened to the voices of those organisms" virtually doesn't exist there. Nor does it exist in the whole "dark side clouding everything", nor Qui-Gon's "all these coincidences are the will of the Force" - every single instance of Force usage in the PT is played exactly as if there were no mediators and the characters were simply psychic/wizards.

This is also the case in the OT, where they might as well not exist (and didn't exist back then) - Ben says it's "created by all living things", but that's just a short line and still simple enough, even though also disposable in the rest of the movies.

The ONLY way they're more consistent with the prequels, is that those put a higher value on physicality, and the Force empowering the body, as with Yoda especially, so you could draw a connection there.

The Midichlorians aren't really as much an "inconsistency", as simply an indicator that these are different versions of the story - so I didn't bring them up

It IS a good talking point, and not even the best. That formulaic nonsense you write isn't an argument.

Script, not the movie. Maybe they left out that line because it created this plot hole?
Certainly with that line included, THE ENTIRETY OF EPISODE III MAKES NO SENSE, not just the ending - so why give my thesis more credence than it already has?

If.

Your hilarious lack of imagination, and the resulting preposterous claim that the only way to do that would've been in a "tacked-on scene", and it could've only been done in a way "irrelevant to the narrative", isn't my problem.

Including that dialogue somewhere in the Padme scenes (instead of that political discussion that leads to nowhere) could've been done, but regardless of that - you're just supporting my point, aren't you? ROTS tells its own story, and takes liberty with the continuity (or, in fact, doing justice to the story of previous movies). You've just rephrased my first post in this thread LOL.

Assuming important story point = poor storytelling.
Assuming important story point = doesn't exist in the story.

If you want to tell "the real backstory" to the OT, you spin a narrative around all the important aspects of it - you don't randomly leave them out and then go "oh well just assume".

And no, it could've only happened with Padme, the way things stand, and she would've said it to Obi-Wan. Didn't happen.

This isn't about getting in a twist about "fantasy and reality", not sure what that even means. I'm pointing out where these films are consisntent and where they aren't.

You've yet to point out any continuity problem, let alone a significant one.
And even if you can, I've already explained how this doesn't even compare to the problems created later on.

Which was my initial point with ROTS - no idea why you're even arguing against me

Because it was done less carefully.

1) Lovers turning out to be related is a classic trope, and it was handled VERY well in in the OT, almost to the point that there was no inconsistencies at all.

The only "awkward lines" are at the end of ROTJ where Wicket hugs his new parents - though not awkward as much as underwhelming/corny.

My point is that there are no problems with IV and V.
And also that it's not an artistic problem with the others, if they don't respect the continuity.

MY POINT EXACTLY.

No, that was legit - it's called a "plot twist".

No, they want I-VI to be a "seamless continuity" - people like you, claiming there never was any continuity between the movies, only artistic license, are in the minority. I'm in the middle, closer to your side because only one movie handled the continuity, 4 didn't.

Both the continuity problems and the childish tone problems started with ROTJ.

Ok, sorry, he wanted to free the slaves, I forgot. However, to suggest this was what Owen meant, is ridiculous - the meaning, the relation to Luke's present, the wording. SO MUCH STORYTELLING NEEDED to make that fit. NONE WAS DONE.

And no, he didn't tragically discover his limits - he just forgot about his goal. Or it was retconned.

An entirely worthless chunk of sophistry, all because you didn't care to read my post to the end,.

1) No I'm not saying it's a problem because it doesn't fit some particular archetype, or isn't done the same way as before. I'm saying where there is structure, and where there isn't one - and yes, structure matters in this genre.

2)"they argue that those things being done in the PT must make it some kind of failure by default."
Well they're wrong.

3) "Whether Obi-Wan lies or manipulates as much as Palpatine -- or shouldn't lie at all -- is down to viewer discretion. The same applies to Leia's memories. It's left to interpretation. Obviously, people are going to notice some of these things and sometimes cry foul, but it goes with the territory."
No it doesn't - the territory was established with V, and aspects of VI, as "careful and artistic way of handling plot twists".

After that, who's to say the territory didn't change to "these are all alternate versions of the story, not the real one"?

And in the same sentence he said "your path to the dark side will be complete" - it was goading, maybe confusing a bit, but not in any way, shape or form the complete ideological brainwashing he did with Anakin in ROTS.
And I meant was Vader - he had no confusions about "serving the good side", he knew he was evil and there was no moral grey-shading.

"Seduced by the dark side" =/= brainwashed into thinking it's the good side.

Lying where? Well, he made him believe the Jedi were trying to take over, not him. A lot of those were done as half-truths, but that's irrelevant here.
As I said, Obi-Wan should've been established as a liar, as was Palpatine.

Cause that didn't happen according to the OT - doing it this way is taking creative license.
However, this one of the more "reconcileable" deviations...

Nope, doesn't. If anything, this element is present in ESB, which ROTJ retconned.
Ironic, how on one hand, the prequels clearly are based with VI in mind (loosely, but all the same), while things like this actually work better without VI.

No, I only recognize it.
The others here are obsessed wih the canonical purity of all six films.

No, things like ^^ aside, reducing the OT by 1/3 leaves me to pillory ROTJ.
The PT, having accepted VI as part of the unit, could've still done a job as consistent as it gets, rather than much less consistent than it could've been.

No I didn't bash the birth scene, I defended it from someone else who bashed it.

Not sure what that all means - it didn't "evolve", it deviated. In some respects, maybe evolved in some kind of surrealist postmodern meta way, though in others the deviations are just random.
And "paint by numbers history" sounds as if those deviations were nothing dramatically significant, when they're exactly that.

So pick one side - either you go with "it's all canon omg", or "it's all surrealist dream visions with no consistency".









____________________

I'm not trolling this thread.

 

Making baseless accusations doesn't make it so.

Baiting and bashing individuals? To the extent that this is an even remotely reasonable way of describing "honest discussion with a few sarcastic remarks", that tone is mutual. Why am I trolling, and they aren't?

Sentence-by-sentence commentary? They're doing that as well, and it's a convenient form of forum discussion. Sometimes not the best one.

Hindering productive discussion? No, it doesn't. If everyone reads and understands the bits they quote, and responds honestly, that IS productive discussion - and seems like I'm the only one doing it. I've made so many points that went enirely ignored by the others.


So yea, none of that is trolling, and the others are as or even more guilty of those things than I am. Why am I trolling and they aren't?

 

Is there a place where we can we see your work?

 

I guess I don't get paid.

 

As a big film fan in general, I love how Lucas paid homage to his fellow "movie brat" friends from 70's in ROTS.

- On the commentary Lucas makes reference to the killing of the separatists leaders / Palpatine creating the Empire as an homage to the baptism scene in Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather. Also, the Opera scene and Order 66 feel like they're straight out of that film too.

- Spielberg famously had a lot of input for the pre-viz for the Utapau action sequences, and Lucas also mentions on the commentary that several shots in the film are deliberately "Spielberg-esque," specifically the Invisible Hand screeching to halt straight up to the camera, and the overhead shot of the clones firing on Aayla Secura.

- The last one may be a bit of a stretch, but I do get a light sense of Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull in Anakin feeling betrayed by his wife and best friend (and possibly even suspecting infidelity), even though he is the one at fault.

 

Am I the only one who sees Anakin's fall as less of "a good man becoming evil" and more "a messed up guy who never should've been here become a monster"? One of the things that I think are actually brilliant about the Prequels is that Anakin isn't the standard chosen one archetype like Luke was. He's screwed up, he has a lot of issues which would've gotten worse sooner if the war didn't give him a simple enemy to fight with a relatively simple way. He's a guy with a lot of problems, never gets to deal with them and then just gets hammered more and more by the constant double-crossing and scheming until he finally snaps.

In most other stories, the chosen one usually gets over his issues and rises to the challenge. Here, it's a messed up guy trying to deal with his own problems and those of everyone else until he just can't take it anymore. It's like pulling a random, paranoid schizophrenic from his therapy session and telling him to beat up space Satan and if he fails, everyone dies. I think it's a really great subversion of the standard chosen one formula.

Probably not what Lucas was going for but it's the way I interpret these events. It also makes his transformation into Vader a lot better because, by losing whatever good in him he had left, he becomes the kind of guy he should've been to save the universe. In control of his power, himself and much more tactically effective. Except now all those traits are being used for evil.

 

That's exactly how I feel about Anakin's role as 'the Chosen One'. It's all a great big subversion on Lucas' part, and I love it.

 

I'd say you have a pretty great take on it.

Forgive me, but I had to bold a couple of observations: brilliant!

I also like the prequels in that Anakin, as majestically talented as he is, or might be, isn't some barn-storming moral success of a man.

He's more a kid that got ripped too soon from his mother, faltered to a martial victory in a big space battle after being told to stay put by a new mentor who then died, and was, based on this dubious achievement, greedily assimilated by an initially-reluctant Jedi -- well, plucked into their ranks and awkwardly insulated in their mental castle, rather than getting truly absorbed and "becoming one" with Jedi doctrine -- then started buckling under the weight of expectations mixed with bottled-up frustrations.

And subversion, yes. Subversion is really the key to the prequel trilogy. It delivers the main story beats and has the right anatomy, but the biochemistry is all different. It's a totally different animal to the OT and I love it for that (while still being true to a basic "Star Wars" grammar). It's also clever and rich enough to constantly allude to that other set of films, and to show some awareness of its own differences (Jar Jar...?), while also being fairly self-contained and wonderfully possessed.

As Anakin himself remarks in a notable burst of indignity: "I'm a person and my name is Anakin". This set of movies has its own way of going about things; its own way of being. And if Anakin himself has some rather raw or unseemly aspects, then it's simply a bit of a "Lucas" thing. Meaning, that's what he does, in his art. Just as THX is a character born to a painful awakening, and might fairly be called a man in search of a personality, so Anakin struggles in a surprisingly "as is" fashion, with little held back from view.

There's a really great moment in Sith where Anakin, in his new identity, fresh from killing, soaked in primal energy, turns menacingly to the camera, locking his (Sith) eye with the viewer. "Are you with me, now?" he could be saying. Our fiendish fascination with him -- even, at times, our rejection of his values or behaviours -- is a curiously and undeniably essential aspect of his downfall. We make him fall with the weight of our expectation, the intensity of our gaze. And it's because we are watching (even if not always comprehending). Watching a flawed individual, that is, and not merely laughing along or cheering at a Han Solo clone.

See that other moment in TESB (now immeasurably stranger)? Where Han tries to shoot Vader and the two cross paths for a while? Only for Vader to then capture Han and torture him with heat and cold (and taunt Leia all the while)? It's an odd sense of retribution for Han mindlessly lasering Vader at the end of ANH. Note how they don't meet again in ROTJ. There's this notion throughout the OT all the time (or perhaps it's just me) that Han is the kind of person Anakin could have become; while, paradoxically, Anakin is fiendishly fascinating because he's forever being something else. That "else" -- or, indeed, a whole raft of "else"-s -- is practically turned into a religious excitation in the PT. The PT is all about the "else".

 

To Anakin's defection, you can also add the Jedi's way of "dealing with" your own personal issues into the mix. When you ask a friend for advice for say dating a girl, you'll probably get some actual advice if you've got a good crowd. If you asked one of the Jedi, you'd get an antiquated spiel about the Force and Jedi Code and then the Force some more that's some pseudo-philosophical bull**** some 900-year-old gremlin came up with while snorting space cocaine than any sound advice.

For a guy like Anakin, if he asks you for advice, you've got to give him actual advice and not a quasi-elementary school scolding where he's the kid and whoever he's talking to is the teacher. Palptine was that guy, the guy he could just talk to not as a Jedi or a husband or the Chosen One, but as just another guy.

 

Yes. The lack of true understanding and nuance in Jedi teaching is just, ah... tragic.

Indeed.

Really, it all comes down to failed communication.

There are some (many!) oblique references to this in the prequel trilogy.

First of all, there's the word/concept "this" itself. It repeatedly pops up in dialogue, in a variety of subtle ways, to abstraction.

That might sound like a ridiculous point ("this" is a fairly common word in the English language, after all), but "THX" (itself like a form of transposed "this") shows how stealthy and weird Lucas can be with dialogue (he has literally called dialogue a "sound effect" before). And "Sith", very tellingly, is an anagram of "this". Revenge of the THIS.

As the Neimoidians say early on when the Jedi start fighting back, "we will not survive this". And they don't survive "this", or Revenge of the "This", or whatever "this" actually is. It's an "elusive" thing, in the words of Obi-Wan, but a prime layer comes down to communication.

"A communications disruption can mean only one thing: invasion."
"How to commune with him I will teach you."

Everyone has missed the beautiful irony in Yoda's final line. Where are these characters in that point in the story? How did they get there? They failed Anakin and they failed themselves. They were not able to commune with Anakin successfully. The Emperor was. Communication suddenly turns into this sacred gift with that critical revelation and promise from Yoda. And it always was sacred: they just never realized. They brought tragedy upon themselves, only to stumble on a perfect truth that could have saved them at the end.

Sorry. I'm always like... this.