Full Series The Clone Wars: Episode 302: ARC Troopers Discussion Thread

Was it a bad dream or did Grievous grab Obi by the head and toss him against the wall in this episode?

If it wasn't a bad dream I can't help but wonder why he didn't just crush him like a melon.

The scene differs from when Grievous is toying with Obi in Episode 3, because at that point he seemed to be an uber Jedi killer that thought he was invincible. At minimum we didn't have 3 Seasons worth of evidence that he wasn't.

If anything his prior confrontations with Grievous should make him a little more interested in providing a death blow.

 

I thought the Clone kids using guns was acceptable, because it was a way of showing how bad the situation was. If the kids hadn?t fought with Rex and the others, then they would have all died (and the facility might have been lost). It was self defense. I don?t think it?s comparable at all to showing an army of kids going to war, which is definitely extremely amoral.

 

Technically, the clones are about ten years old when they go off to war, so the show already has an army of children fighting a gritty war.

I suppose that would make the kids who shot the droids in ARC Troopers about five, then.

 

"Technically, the clones are about ten years old when they go off to war, so the show already has an army of children fighting a gritty war."

 

My two cents on the whole John Connor/clone children thing: arguably, the major reason why John in Terminator 2 didn't use firearms is because that movie's plot specifically demanded that he be protected by a super-powerful bodyguard with assistance from his mom (who for similar plot reasons didn't use firearms to defend herself back in T1). On the other hand, the clone children from this episode were not subject to that narrative device since the "adult protector" figures were clearly not able to fend off the droid menace the way someone like the Terminator could.

 

^This response is the definition of the word ?pwned?.

Also Japan has some of the most violent "childrens shows" out there, yet their crime rates are amongst the lowest in the world. To say that shows containing violence leads to children being violent is completely unfounded, if anything it seems like attempts to control every aspect of children?s life?s which is causing them to become rebellious.

I can't speak for DBrennan3333, but when I was a kid I knew the difference between cartoons and reality. He apparently won?t give kids that much credit. God forbid they should watch something like Tom and Jerry, that could be nasty.

 

Also, Terminator 2 has a strong core message of anti-violence/anti-war, personified by John Connor.

Not really, Arnold unloaded how much firepower into the T-1000 throughout the course of that movie? The fact that the liquid metal bot was nigh indestructible just made for an even better excuse to inflict more gratifying violence upon it. I always took Connor's sentiments to be more: "I have this big badass robot who can disarm any human opponents using non-fatal means, so why not?". Not to mention that the Terminator series features that futuristic war against the machines, which incidentally is similar to the fight against the Separatist droid army.

 

Although I'm sure the meaning of that ROTS scene was that it was the first time they had fought, perhaps that line can still make sense. At first Dooku could have trained Grievous merely to wield a saber effectively and take advantage of his cybernetic body when fighting. Later on though Dooku sees that Grievous is increasingly coming up against experienced Jedi and losing and so he teaches him some specifically Jedi saber techniques. So when on Utapau Grievous tells Obi-Wan that he has been 'trained in your Jedi arts by Count Dooku', whereas before in TCW he was using more basic swordfighting techniques.

As you can see though, that does not make him much better against Obi-Wan. So perhaps he tries to emulate the Jedi but just can't get it right and so is again defeated by Kenobi. I don't necessarily think he was using different moves on Utapau than he has done in TCW but when he mentions his training in the 'Jedi arts' to Obi-Wan he is probably just boasting, although he thinks he's got better at duelling. Grievous probably should have stuck to using moves tailored to his strengths like spinning his arms round, since when he gets involved in Jedi-stype duelling he loses because he cannot match their skills in that regard.

 

I wasn't aware of how much discussion there was about Grievous as portrayed in TCW because my interest in the show really dips and spikes (with a lot more of the former). But thanks for letting me know and, no, I'm not really surprised that others have pointed this out.

Credit to LawJedi for his database of respectable Grievous actions in TCW. I think maybe my criticism was a little bit shortsighted, localized mostly just to this one last episode - I should've thought back a little bit more.

Somebody posted some screencap of some cartoon featuring a tween in a midriff. Okay. I have no idea what cartoon that was and I'd never seen it in my life, but, still I concede the point: some of the hundreds of thousands of cartoons which preceded TCW also featured scantily-clad tweens. It's just kind of weird that you're such a huge consumer of scantily-clad tweens that you have photos from obscure TV shows showing them.

(I'm sure somebody can find another obscure cartoon featuring child killers, too. Don't bother: I concede that point, as well.)

 

Did you not just read what Gry just said about insults?

 

That's an okay theory, it's just that it's dead wrong. As discussed in (a) the DVD commentary from 2003 and (b) the "Making of T2" book from 1991, Cameron and his co-writer, William Wisher, deliberate chose, very early on, to never feature John Connor pointing a gun. Cameron talks about this in some detail on the audio commentary, very casually, explaining that he thinks that it's wrong. Most of the fans here seemed giddy at the imagery and almost nobody expressed even a hint of reservation. (Then again, James Cameron is a Canadian citizen who refuses to become an American, so maybe that has something to do with it - those "sissy, skirt-wearing" Canadians don't love child killers as much as Americans.)

 

Mind explaining to the rest of us how seeing children defend themselves in life or death situations is somehow damaging to their sensabilities? It's been said that we're not validating your stance, but all you do to back up your, "points," is reference Cameron's stance in T2. No one is saying he's necessarily wrong, but you failed to prove why his attitude on gun violence is the only correct one. Also, knock it off with the damned strawmen. No one was giddy about kids killing things (reminding you that they were shooting at robots and you know it. Knock off the, "ganged up on," routine as well. It just makes you look worse.

I saw what this was before you edited it . . .

Another point is that, unlike the normal timeline, they prevent Judgement Day at the end of T2. As such, John never needs to grow up and become a leader of the resistance, never needs to use a firearm. As such, him never firing a gun makes sense in the end as he never becomes, "tainted," as it were.

 

The arguments are boring and I don't care what you think about me. So that's done.

Yeah, I made fun of people who use Viagara. Obviously, that one struck a chord, eh?

Since you're apparently worried about appearances - telling me what "looks worse" and all - I personally think it looks bad when you bring up random, moderately distasteful jokes that the poster deleted after five seconds.

 

Not really. It just reflects two of my internet pet peeves; 1, strawmen and 2, cowardly editing posts to make yourself look better. If you have something to say, then say it IMHO.

Anyway, on topic. I was curious when I was watching both eps, especially this one. Was it just me or are the character designs slightly different? I know Obi Wan's hear was a tad darker, but there was something I can't quite put my finger on. Perhaps its just the improved animation? Whatever it is, I think its an improvement.

 

The TCW team have mentioned how they essentially rebuilt the main cast's character models from scratch in Season 3 to accommodate their leaps in animation quality - maybe it is just the expanded range of expression that seems new?

 

See, my point of contention with comparing John Conner not shooting at the T-1000 versus clone children firing at battledroids is the extreme differences in scenerios, contexts, and universes. T2 is set in the (mostly) real world and is fairly realistic (minus the scifi premise of course). They're using real guns in a real environment shooting at a human looking being (whose default mode is a police officer). I can understand someone finding that John Conner shooting at a cop (even if he only looks like one) may not be an image that children should have burned into their young minds. Now, in case of the Clone Wars, we have a fantasy setting involving fantasy people firing fantasy weapons at a fantasy enemy (also firing fantasy weapons and who are also not even alive). There is nothing for children to confuse and misenteret here. It's a severe mistake to assume that children are as stupid and fragile as some like to believe. I saw Halloween when I was six after all (and Hellraiser shortly before that!).

 

It's not obscure, but I just realised that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has some 'unfortunate implications': They eat junk food all day, live in sewers because they're freaks, build tremendous amounts of hardware and firepower, learn deadly martial arts, and unleash a wave of vigilantism on an unsuspecting city. Just thought I'd point that out because it seemed amusing and that everyone could use a good chuckle.

 

This is the same thing he pulled with me a few pages back, I really hope the mods are reading.

 

Care to explain why Cameron thought the idea was wrong? Did he cite moral reasons? Did he think it conflicted with the mood of the story? How did his views relate to Terminator 1 where Sarah Connor also didn't use a gun? Any other details I should know about?

 

Dungeons & Dragons is an obscure cartoon? If you never saw it, it's your loss. But to most people I know from my generation, it was one of the most popular shows around.

It's called the internet. All you need to do is type up the name of a show you remember from childhood in a website caled Google (www.google.com) and it will show you a number of pictures from it.
And also, you've been warned about the personal insults.

 

While we're at it, why not list some other dangerous kids shows? I mean, Batman: The Animated Series told all kids to go out and buy 1930's era clothing and shoot their daddy's tommy guns at people! And the big bad guy was voiced by Luke Skywalker!

My god! The connection between the two is undeniable at this point! George Lucas killed Hamill's career to perpetuate Cartoon Violence!

Actually, that would be pretty funny. And this is coming from a "Skirt wearing Canadian Sissy", as some people here so eloquently put it.

Can we just drop this already? Can't we all discuss in mutual agreement how much interference Jar Jar will have on the next episode?

 

Jar Jar is in the next Episode! Sweet. Must see TV.