ST Lightsaber Combat in the ST

Ut Oh! It is unwise to upset the Ashoka Army!

 

evil people just aren't allowed to win very often because villains must lose like 75% of the time against the non-expendable good characters. often times the villain can be given some excuse about why they can't triumph in all their glory.

 

Opinion taken.

 

I'd argue that your personal rationalisations are influencing the comparisons so that they're more palatable to you. These are all unbalanced matches on paper where the outcome goes against the expected winner. That's the basic underlying point here. The junior Jedi Knight losing against the Jedi Master who even Yoda couldn't defeat is a foregone conclusion, but you're inserting a personal rationalisation (not necessarily supported by the movie) that Anakin is legendary to make the paper comparison closer. Anakin's 13 years of fast-track training does not beat Dooku's 60 years. That's your argument for why the Kylo vs Rey fight is unbalanced, the years of difference, well look, we've got about 15 years difference between Kylo and Rey depending on when Ben joined Luke and yet that's barely a quarter of the gap in years between Anakin and Dooku. Clearly, years of training isn't the deciding factor. Which has been a point that many have made in this thread over the last 14 months.

I wouldn't call Kenobi's victory just a fluke. That's rather demeaning. He draws upon the Force to perform an impossible feat (which I have to assume because Maul just stands there like an idiot). But again, how is this different from what Rey does when she lets in the Force? Besides, you're conveniently ignoring that Kenobi is a novice who has never fought anyone like Maul before (who fights dirty and furiously) but is able to go toe to toe with him for a good number of strikes. Essentially, this a student from a martial arts school going up against a hardened street fighter. It shouldn't be a contest on paper (sparring versus real fighting), but until that Force push intercedes it's an even fight (possibly less so since Kenobi is on a powered up comeback). I'm not sure I understand your rationalisation of Luke vs Vader in ROTJ, mainly because you seem to be saying that Vader was holding back (because he didn't want to kill his son) but well, so too was Kylo. The point, I'm sure you understood, was that Vader lost because of storytelling reasons, not because Luke was better than him. That's exactly the same reason that Kylo loses to Rey.

I guess this leads me to ask the following question, do you think that Rey's skills are superior to those of Kylo coming out of TFA? Because I don't think we're meant to see it that way at all. She beats him on this day, but it doesn't meant that she'll beat him on another. The circumstances utterly determined the outcome, like in many of these other duels (which virtually ALL end for a character/storytelling reason), not the fighters' stats.

You say that you're not considering circumstantial factors in determining that this was the most mismatched fight, but then you've used circumstantial factors to argue how the other mismatched examples I gave are not as mismatched. Do you see? This was my point at the beginning of this discussion - it's complaint based on selective reading. You're choosing this hill to fight on, even though there have been other hills previously. It's just weird.

 

Amazing post!

 

I suppose I will explain further.

Yes, Anakin is legendary. If you do not believe this is supported by the movies, which would be odd, you can watch the Clone Wars TV show. Anakin is a one of a kind Jedi. This potential / power in itself, of course, doesn't overcome Dooku's training initially, but it eventually does and is entirely logical. Anakin is constantly improving throughout the Clone Wars TV show, and is a better match for Dooku each time he faces him.

Your characterization of the training differences between Anakin / Dooku and Kylo / Rey is very off-base. Quite simply because of diminishing returns. Each year of training benefits you less, and the first years of training provide more benefit than later years. The difference between 9 and 10 years of training is insignificant compared to 1 year of training and no training.

So, training is very, very important. But, potential is also very important. Anakin has more potential than Dooku, so he will surpass Dooku when the difference in training is no longer significant enough to counteract Anakin's higher potential.

Why does a 9 year old chess prodigy eventually overcome the current 23 year old chess grandmaster? Diminishing returns, and a differing natural affinity for the game.

I'd also like to say Count Dooku is obviously not at Yoda's level. Dooku retreats, and Yoda lets him to save two lives. Yoda is also competitive with Dooku's master.

You can call Kenobi's victory whatever you want. The difference between Rey and Kenobi's victory is that Rey won through martial prowess, and Kenobi won through I suppose 'presence of mind' if you are hesitant to call it anything else. Kenobi was outperformed martially.

Vader Vs. Luke in RoTJ is a mismatch on paper. But even in this fight the lesser trained fighter is far more experienced than Rey. So it's still not an apples to apples comparison. Luke wins because Vader is hesitant at this moment to fight his son. You mention that Kylo is holding back in the same way, but I dispute the claim. Based upon the evidence available, it's far more likely Kylo was holding back in the way Vader was in ESB. Where Vader was simply not trying to kill his opponent but was still willing to harm him.

Generally, the outcomes of lightsaber combat in the movies are not at all implausible. Kenobi vs Maul would be tenuous if Kenobi had actually out dueled Maul. Vader vs Luke is the culmination of Vader's return to the light. I have no problem with the 'slight underdog' being victorious. Which is the absolute most you could coin Anakin as vs Dooku in ROTS.

If for instance Kylo was fighting his cousin or sister and knew this, I suppose that would provide some rationale. But it's definitely not as patently obvious as was Vader vs Luke in ROTJ.

I don't know if this fight is meant to be representative. I suspect, and I hope that filmmakers are crafting a duel that is supposed to mean something. So, my first impression is yes, it is representative. In the sense that Rey can beat an injured Kylo Ren fairly consistently. Now, if it was not representative then I have no real problem with the duel.

The ideas that a fight can have storytelling significance and be plausible are not mutually exclusive.

 

i feel like a lot of this isn't addressing the psychological game. i remember miyamoto musashi for instance won a lot of his duels by winning the psychological game. his opponent's psychological state and nature was more important than his opponent's fighting abilities in a lot of ways. i remember examples like how musashi would show up late to a duel to throw off his opponent psychologically. he was defeating people more mature and skilled than him from a young age it seems.

in terms of the psychological game, rey has all the advantages and kylo ren was losing.

in terms of physical condition, rey also has all the advantages.

skill/ability/power are not the only factors. though i would note rey defeats kylo ren using the dark side (imo). she's sick of being hunted by him. and she takes pleasure in hunting him, in making him feel afraid and powerless, because that's what he did to her. she is taking revenge on him.

i also think there are some differences with vader and luke in ESB in that vader is angry with luke and is trying to hold himself back from killing luke. kylo ren is not angry with rey. his problem is he can't seem to get enough anger/hatred for this fight. before he backs her onto the ledge he'd begun just trying to disarm her - almost every blow aimed for her lightsaber, not her. whether he knows that he can't keep this up much longer (he's wounded and weakening as the duel goes on) or whether he just doesn't have enough of a will to do anything else, i don't know.

and need i think is important. rey *needs* to defeat kylo ren. if she doesn't he won't let her go, he won't let her help finn. even when she's at the ledge and is in that moment defeated, her determination remains. she is very tenacious in this. she has to find a way. i think the intensity of this determination really outmatches kylo ren's determination (which is lacking). she wants to win more than he does, not only for herself, but for others.

regarding kenobi and maul. maul loses in part due to his arrogance. he thinks very little of the jedi and i'm pretty sure he simply expects to win. sidious is telling him things like "they will be no match for you." and in a way it's true. maul defeated qui-gon. but maul is not very creative and seems to think that sheer power and skill is all that matters in a duel. obi-wan is a character who consistently wins when out-matched. what he lacks in power or skill (when he lacks) he makes up for in wits. everyone he defeats (maul, grievous, anakin) it is due to his cleverness. he is proof that it's not just about raw power and skill.

sidious imo is another person who relies on wit and strategy. he's unlikely to start a match if he hasn't plotted things out. he's assessing how much of a risk things are to his survival. when he loses it's because he was wrong (he miscalculated). he is afraid of luke, but lets him come because he also is fairly certain he has the advantage and that luke is too "green." but he also has vader who he sees as his loyal dog, his protector against any danger luke may pose to him. his miscalculation is due to underestimating the light side of the force--that love between luke and vader could flip things against him.

 

That could be debated: "She recoiled from it [a voice or urge she was hearing to kill Kylo Ren]. From the dark side." (TFA novelization, Ch. 18, p. 253 [hardcover]) (For context, that was after she's put Kylo out of commission but just before the ground split between them.)

 

that was after she won and kylo ren was helpless on the ground (already defeated). i think she won using the dark side--i mean she's wanted to kill kylo ren all movie and it's not for "good" reasons. it's because she's afraid, hates being hunted, thinks he's a monster, wants revenge for what he did to her, han and finn. she just didn't know until he is completely at her mercy and her mind is screaming "kill him!" how dangerous this is.

it's kind of like when anakin sliced dooku's hands off... he was fed by vengeance when he did that... after, palpatine tells him to kill dooku, and it gives him pause. unlike rey, he opts to actually do it.

 

Sooooo...... good then?

 

????

The stupid acrobatics were in the prequels – and particularly bad in parts two and three.

 

Notice how everyone forgets Luke's acrobatics in ROTJ but always point them out in the PT.

 

Luke's acrobatics made a certain amount of sense from tactical perspective. His moves put him where he needed to be and allowed him to attack and defend in extremely difficult situations where conventional martial arts moves would likely get him killed. PT Jedi gymnastics were thrown in where they didn't make any sense and would get them killed if they didn't have plot armor.

 

maybe for some it's a matter of not noticing... like in the comparison between rey and palpatine some people point out that she's using his moves and as one who doesn't notice the moves people use as much, i was like "whoa..." until i encountered the counter-argument that luke uses the same moves in rotj. i mean palpatine and luke are related, yeah? yeah...

 

Come on. They are in no way comparable. He does some flips and a quick vertical jump. The PT has Anakin plunging about a hundred stories and landing like a feather.

 

^^^^^ I agree moderator but the duel in TFA did have a lack of jumping/acrobatics. Rey however did do an uphill running tumblesault .

 

I found the TFA duel to be a nice combination of both the OT and PT styles. Both combatants fought with a raw, untrained style like Luke in the OT, yet the duel itself retains the much faster tempo introduced by the PT.

 

I mostly agree.

 

Props to the most recent episode of Rebels for putting together a very coherent and plausible duel.

 

The TFA duel is growing on me, the more I watch it. I suppose it's more about the scenery, though. A lightsaber duel in a dark, snowy forest is just right (but a green blade would have worked so much better than blue!). The choreography wasn't bad, I'm still just disappointed that Ben lost to Rey. I'm hoping that she'll be revealed as some kind of midichlorian progeny or something, because it really hurts him as a villain to lose to her.

It would be like an untrained Luke seeing Kenobi fall, yelling "No!", then running over, picking up the saber, and cleaning Vader's clock. Granted, Vader has a bit more experience than Kylo Ren, but stopping and holding that blaster bolt was no apprentice maneuver. If he's able to do that without Snoke having completed his training, then he'd better be something incredible in the next film.

 

read the rest of this thread. there are tons of reasons that kylo losing makes more sense than him winning.

 

I've never subscribed to the idea that the villain has to have a certain initial victory in order for them to remain compelling throughout the story when this line of thought is accompanied with a hero that must have a certain initial failure from which the recover and are ultimately victorious. The outcomes are not necessarily what makes a character compelling, in my book.

Considering that the villain does not see themselves as the villain, why shouldn't Kylo experience the same failure as Luke does in ESB?

 

It doesn't help. Imagine if Johnny and Daniel fought on the beach at the party, Daniel tackles Johnny and chokes him unconscious and then later meets Mr. Miyagi. Sensei Kreese tells the other Cobra Kai guys, "Bring Johnny to me, I will complete his training". Let's face it, it hurts Johnny as a villain.

 

If you reduce it to - the villain guy loses with the good guy seeing him off, at the end of the story - then, of course, that's the simple dialectics of good guy and bad guy and their function. But it is only works if the characters remain perfunctory, one-dimensional villains and good guys.

We are introduced to Kylo-Ren and learn that he is the nephew of Luke Skywalker and grandson of Anakin /Darth Vader. In other words he's a complex character right from the start. IF he'd just been the masked monolith that he tries to project, a la Vader, then it would have been strange to see him not fulfill the threat promised by his appearance. But it's quite clear that the movie is designed to show his shortcomings at being that implacable force to be feared.

It only hurts him as a villain if being a villain is all he is meant to be. A villain is all Johnny was and was ever meant to be. I don't think their comparable except to point out that one is a character and the other is just a villain.