PT Some Keys to the Prequels

Taken down a notch from where? His high horse where he preached "better than all Jedi I am" ..!? Yoda was taken down a notch when under his watch the Jedi were wiped out and he was unable to defeat Darth Sidious. The storyline of that episode has no impact on the saga regardless.

 

The Separatists were planning on using their army as a bludgeon to force the Republic into making certain concessions. Rather than start a destructive war, the Republic should have capitulated and given in to the Separatists' demands. The lesson of Star Wars is that capitulation is pretty much always preferable to violence. Refusing to fight is the only way to rob evil of its power. After that, you must trust in the Force to properly balance the scales of justice.

This is a radical point that's hard for a lot of people to accept. I know. But that's the lesson. It's been the lesson ever since Return of the Jedi. Luke triumphs only after he stops fighting and decides to let the Emperor destroy him.

 

Hmmm....different scenarios (for a start) but.."peace for our time..." - Neville Chamberlain? Capitulation to the threat of violence is not always preferable...

But, the Jedi still don't get to decide...

 

Sometimes conflict is inevitable. But that's a choice each and every person has to make for him or herself. The Jedi serve the Force, and they at the very least should have abstained from fighting. Maybe the rest of the Republic would have rushed into war anyway, but the Jedi would have survived, with their principles intact. They would have been there as a shining example for other people to aspire to, and in that case maybe the people of the Republic wouldn't have been so easily led astray by Palpatine and the Sith.

 

Not really.

Fortunately we know that's not the case in reality.

Probably because it's not actually true.

I doubt it.

No, if the Republic had capitulated Gunray would have used his vast wealth for charitable purposes, such as opening orphanages and providing food for the needy.

And Palpatine and Dooku would have retired knowing that they had made the galaxy a better place for all people, which was all they really wanted.

 

Wait..what?

The Rebels defeated the Empire by...blowing them up.. didn't they?

Where do you think all the money for traveling around the galaxy and living in giant temples comes from. The Jedi owed their allegiance to the Republic and were responsible to for doing everything in their power to protect it.

 

I'm just telling you that's what the movies are about. It's okay, you don't have to like it. Star Wars isn't for everyone.

 

Their job was to protect it, but not fight a war for it. The minute they went to Geonosis, they betrayed everything they once stood for.

 

Debatable. You can interpret the movies any way you want. There is no one way to interpret it. Just because people interpret the movies differently from you doesn't make them wrong. Your statement just sounds condescending imo.

 

Agreed. It's not a fact. But opinion. Telling someone that SW isn't for everyone is just damaging and disrespectful imo. Not everything in SW is for everyone but there is something in SW for everyone. Be positive. That wasn't.

 

I'm just not sure how you guys could watch these movies and fail to come to the conclusion that the Jedi shouldn't have involved themselves in the Clone War. Like, I legitimately don't understand what you get out of them when you watch them.

 

Wait what???

So the rebels in ANH should just have given up and the DS blown them up and then let the DS blow up planet after planet.
They didn't and they WON. They fought back and they destroyed a terrible weapon that had already killed billions and would probably have killed billions more.
Same in RotJ, the rebels destroyed another terrible weapon before it could be used to kill the innocents. And Luke would not kill Vader because he realized that if he did this, he would only become a slave to the emperor. And Vader, he KILLED the emperor to save his son.
Accoridng to you, he should have just stood by and let Palpatine kill Luke.

Also, the seps were planning for war, this is said in AotC.

Refusing to fight only ensures that evil will be in power for ever.

First, the Jedi wouldn't have survived. Palaptine would have the excuse he needs to label them as traitors and the clones would hunt them down.
Second, really great principles, "We will let a brutal enemy murder billions because that is the moral thing to do."
Had the Jedi stood by and watched, either the republic would win. In which case the common people would see the Jedi as cowards who could not be bother to lift a finger to protect the republic they are sworn to protect. If the seps win, the Jedi would be even more reviled by the people of the republic "You stood by and let this enemy crush us." Plus the seps would almost certainly hunt the Jedi down.

In short, NOT fighting would almost certainly have made things worse for the Jedi and the republic, not better.

No this is what you THINK the movies are about. Your opinion is not fact. And people can disagree with your opinion and have their own view what the films are about.

Lastly, time and again in SW, people try to stop evil and injustice. And sometimes they use violence to achieve that. And quite often it works well. It worked in ANH, it worked in RotJ, both with the DS, Palpatine and saving Han. Obi-Wan killed Maul, he didn't just give up and let Maul kill him.
The Jedi are trained to fight if need be and they have been protecting the republic for over 30 000 years.
The Jedi lost in the PT, partly because Palpatine had set them and the galaxy up in such a way that they were left with only one option. Fight. Refusing to fight would only have made matters worse.
The other reason they lost, at least to me, is that they were kind of clueless. They should have realized that they were being played and done more about it. This does not mean refusing to fight as that would not have helped.

"These movies" also include the OT. Where Yoda says that the Sith must be stopped, that only a trained Jedi can conquer Vader and the emperor. It sure doesn't sound remotely like the idea was to surrender to them. And where the Rebels fight to stop the empire. Luke wants to act and make a difference while his uncle says "don't get involved."

What the films show, as I said above, Palpatine painting the Jedi into a corner. They have no option but to fight, refusing would be worse. Their "fault" might be not stopping themselves from being painted into a corner. But once there, the choice to fight was the only option they could take given what they knew.

darth-sinister

You contradict yourself, if their job is to protect it, then IF the republic is attacked by an army, their job IS to fight a war. A war to protect the Republic. What kind of guardians or protectors say "We will defend you, but only as long as no one comes along and actually tries to attack you, then we will do nothing."
How is standing idly by and let millions, possibly billions suffer and die NOT a betrayal of everything they stand for?
The Jedi have sworn an oath to protect the republic and their allegiance was to the republic. If the republic is under attack and the republic is asking the Jedi for help. How is it not a betrayal if the Jedi just turn their backs on the republic?

As I said above, NOT fighting would label the Jedi as traitors and Palpatine would have the excuse he needs to kill them all. So order 66 would happen earlier.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

Condescension aside, I think everyone here knows what the movies are about, I think they'd generally agree about the message that's being presented at the end of ROTJ. I think the way you presented it was a bit too simple and didn't take account of the entire reality of the saga, and Samuel Vimes elaborated on that a bit, but I was fine with the way you presented it.

The discussion wasn't about what message is being presented, it wasn't about any of that when you jumped in, it was just about the reality of the situation, whether it was just a secession or an invasion, etc. It was more focused on detail than the big picture.

My response did not dispute what message Star Wars presents, just the practicality of that message in our reality.

As if this one idea about refusing to fight is the entirety of Star Wars, as if there's nothing left to like. I think you know better than that.

Like, I have no clue why you care, or how that thought even comes to your mind. What does it matter? What is it to you?

I think you may have allowed comments or people here to cloud your thoughts in a bad way, I think you've allowed yourself to get personal in what should probably be a very impersonal discussion.

I apologize for that intrusion.

Personally, I've always gotten something out of the lesson in ROTJ, and I've tried to always remember it and take it with me, but I'm also very aware that it's a fantasy; it's not always applicable in reality, imo.

 

I think you're taking this discussion a bit too seriously myself. I didn't think there was anything too personal being said, given that we're all talking about a series of fictional movies, but now that you've brought it up it seems like a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, doesn't it? Ah well. I guess I'll bow out of this one.

 

I didn't say stand idly by. They can help in other ways. By being the soldiers, they effectively made things worse. They immersed themselves into the war and in being soldiers, they became corrupted far worse than they were to begin with.

He can't. He doesn't have the executive power to do so. The Senate and the Courts still have that power. If he wanted them dead, he wouldn't have waited three years. He would have given the issue when they were on Geonosis and not expecting it.

 

But you're ignoring the actual plot of the films. The good guys defeat the bad guys by killing them. I could say SW is about baking cinnamon buns, but if it never happened it's not a very good argument.

Sorry we don't have the exact same opinion as you

The Jedi went to Geonosis to stop one of their own from being unjustly executed by barbarians.

 

The_Phantom_Calamari you're taking the situation that occurs with Luke, and then broadening it and applying it to the whole saga (and real life?), but it's nonsensical in both contexts. From my POV the ultimate message communicated in the final duel is that one must be willing to die rather than turn to the dark side, as death is a better fate than becoming a monster like Vader did. Luke accepted that, and by chance was lucky enough to survive what he thought would be certain death. Now this issue isn't really addressed in any of the other films, except I guess ROTS in another context as Anakin was unwilling to let Padme die, but I'm sure he would have been willing to die himself. But nowhere else in the saga does someone literally have to choose between joining the dark side or dying. So taking that one instance and applying it to all 6 films, 3 of which were made 15+ years later, doesn't exactly make sense.

 

Wow, what a weird turn for this thread. I sort of understood the movies as "good beats evil (eventually, with lots of work)".
I wouldn't have respected any of the Jedi had they just gone "peace out" and left their roles as protectors of the galaxy. They were willing to make sacrifices (morally and physically) to ensure that the good guys win over the evil ones. I'd say that is very much in keeping with the main message of the saga. And frankly, it's not your business to tell us what the movies are about. You can tell us what you think the movies are about.

Maybe Palpatine can't invoke Order 66, but do you honestly believe that when the Jedi adopt a neutral stance in a galaxy-wide war they'll be able to come back to the Republic and expect the same authority and respect in their roles as diplomatic envoys? People would still be baying for Jedi blood. What could they have done?

 

That happened no later than the second page.

 

Exactly. That one instance is about Luke's journey...personally. As is his training. It's actually about subverting the typical mythical trope. By which I mean, a super-hero/demi-god etc. would have the power to save his friends and destroy the 'monster'. That is the typical hero's story. What the creators of Star Wars (the OT) did was to instead tell the story of what it is to be mortal...it rejects the notion of hero as uber-mensch, as god-head transformer of worlds.

Part of the story is how Luke misunderstands what the Jedi expect of him. He thinks they are training him to be powerful enough to defeat evil, but they are actually training him to be insightful enough to confront evil. That is why his lesson in the cave is a failure, and why he doesn't understand why it is.

There, in the throen room he learns what the Jedi have really been teaching him, what it is to be a Jedi (the true hero's journey) - it isn't about power, it is about confronting evil...and where is that evil? It isn't 'out there'; it is in him. Killing Vader won't give him the power to save his friends...it's a mirage, as all vengeance is - it is impotent rage - it will not undo what is already done. There is no power to be had here except the 'power' to be a monster...the very evil he sets out to fight.

He screams out in agony, not in faith but in hope (there is a difference) as the Emperor fries him. It is not faith in his father (Anakin) that leads to his epiphany, it is understanding that it is about himself and his own choices...not those of others. That is why he looks surprised (shocked) when he sees Vader pick up the Emperor. And Vader, in his choosing looks to Luke, and then at the Emperor. He understands the emptiness of what the Emperor has to offer, of what he represents. He understands the same lesson that Luke has...Luke's example shows him the way. "Only now, at the end, do you understand" is as much to Vader as it is Luke.

The story isn't about Luke giving up on his friends, it is about him realising he can change nothing for them...that anything he does here (in terms of cutting down Vader) will only sate his hatred and anger in the moment. It is about understanding he is not all-powerful, but rather is the keeper of his own conscience and it is that which is important.

It isn't about 'not trying to change the future' and having faith in 'Anakin's greater destiny'..in some notion of an all-benevolent, all-knowing 'greater plan'