Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Mzukiller, Nov 22, 2013.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
the night I saw that the auidence went out of their minds with cheers and applause- the single best movie theater experience- ever.... Star Wars only sucks when nerds apply rules to what can't be done.
he wasn't a threat, he was a nuisance, an aggitator. He was the tool of Sidious, which is why he runs off so Obi Wan will chase after... all by design.
He was just okay
Interesting. Because I always felt the very reverse.
Sure, Grievous could wield a Lighsaber. But that's about it. He was a high-tech maschine with four arms and thus four lightsabers. Still, he was terribly defeated by a single Jedi with a single lightsaber and - most importantly - with the Force as his ally.
Generally, I liked Maul, Dooku, Tarkin and the Fetts more than Grievous. I liked him more than Jabba, though. Jabba's is waste of time.
Off-topic, but: "wars not make one great" Yoda didn't flip around with a lightsaber. That's kind of the point (in case you missed that).
Grievous was a very good villian but he was not my favourite. My favourite is probably Darth Maul! It would've been better if Grievous could use the force.
I wouldn't say he was terribly defeated. It was a pretty even contest for a long while. As for defeat with a single lightsabre, I thought he shot him.
He obviously was a threat or the Council would have declared the war over IMO. I agree Grievous is a coward, but he's a dangerous coward.
He kills multiple Jedi and gives Kenobi a decent run for his money. He's dangerous.
Yep, good point. All by design.
Yoda knows war does not make one great because he lead a war, he knows it from experience.
He should have been developed and explored more. Not just created and killed for the purpose of replacing Tyraunus for a brief moment so that Anakin could turn to the Dark Side. I know that was the purpose but we should have seen and learned more about him.
I thought he looked cool and all, but he didn't really have any character at all, IMO. I MUCH preferred Darth Maul and Count Dooku.
I liked GG. Symbolically he was a Vader precursor. I so enjoyed the silly outcry of what a coward GG was accussed of being when the fact of the matter he followed The Art Of War. Coward? No. Windu was a dumbass for thinking him a coward.
The way I see it is if grevious was a bad "bad guy" then the Jedi wouldn't have had such a difficult time with all of his destructive antics. He is a good bad guy and he dies like a pro.
I love the signature of VadersLaMent but you spelt genitals wrong, just saying.
I really can spell, I'm just a bad typist.
I'll amend my statement to he was a good villain, retroactively, with the EU and such.
I liked Grevious a lot more than Dooku; it would've been cool if he'd been the one to hold Obi-Wan prisoner on Geonosis.
Yes, part of the problem with the PT villains, is that they feel like throw-away villains rather than characters that were developed.
Yeah none of them compare to Vader.
Well, Lucas did say that fan reaction over Maul really surprised him, to the point he'd have kept the character alive until the Episode III battle in front of Palpatine.
"Was General Grievous a good villain?"
That's a pretty broad question and the OP should have laid some definitions for the word "good," so as to avoid the issue of topicality. My own criteria of a good CIS general were met with Grievous: powerful, interesting, "cool," authoritarian, but still essentially ignorant of the real conflict, of Sith vs Jedi, taking place. Thus, I find General Grievous a good villain, given the parameters and the purpose of the character.
Though Grievous is mainly a proxy to fight the war and a tool to isolate Anakin from Obi-Wan in ROTS, it is understandable as ROTS deals with the endgame and, in the end, Sidious viewed Grievious disposable once the war itself had served his purpose. Regardless, I enjoyed General Grievous for even though Sidious might see him as expendable, Grievous does not. He continues to fight and spearhead a fixed war that, to him, is the real conflict. I found his conversation with Sidious revelatory, and his fight with Obi-Wan entertaining. The character, as other points out, alludes to several different themes and motifs. Nevertheless, the 7-foot tall military commander and de facto CIS leader after the death of Count Dooku, delivered enough of an impact to deem him as a good villain, considering the purpose of his character within the story being told.
Like others said, he served his purpose. Wish they'd build a little backstory for him in the movies but he didn't have a huge part so it wasn't really neccesary.
Grievous would had been a good villain if rather than being portrayed a hunchback coward he would had been portrayed as he was in the original clone wars series (Not the CGI one).
I think that his motivations should had been the same as in the new clone wars, that he wanted to be Jedi; but lacked force sensivity. But rather than being brutal against civilians, he should just had been brutal and extremely hateful against the Jedi.
I noticed that he was able to take on Obi-Wan in a fight, in Bound for Rescue (season 5 TCW) and destroy many of his ships before that, in a fleet battle.
Then he had to flee Obi-Wan's ship because Obi-Wan had gotten to the escape pods and set the ship to self-destruct.