PT Was Tartakovsky wrong or was Lucas about General Grievous's character?

This and have that Jedi strike team scene in AOTC in there where they try to deactivate the Droid Army but fail and Grievous is there to fight them.

 

I didn't think that Grievous' Jedi killing abilities in personal combat needed to be quite as good as depicted in the microseries, since I feel like the question would always remain as to why nobody else chose to toss him around with telekinetic Force abilities like Obi-Wan did in ROTS or as was done several times in TCW.

But in ROTS he seemed to fight so very clumsily, and I felt like he should have kept his more graceful and unorthodox fighting style (like holding sabers in his feet, or spinning at the waist).

 

Lucasverse GG
Kill Count: 0
Defeated by Obi-Wan Kenobi with a few direct blaster shots while Kenobi was dangling off the edge of a platform.

Also, the Hypori attack was more of an ambush than an actual fight. The Jedi had never fought something/someone like Grievous before, and were easily taken by surprise with him.

 

I was just about to post the exact same thing, thanks for saving me the time.

 

Because like I said, he was not the main focus of RotS, nor did he fight any other of them in the movie.

CW/TCW is different, as the general of CIS, of course he should be threatening enough.

 

who was wrong?

the one who didn't create the character obviously

 

I like both versions. In the micro-series everything was over the top, so I don't take it to seriously like Grievous fighting with his feet. But he should have been a bit more intimidating in Rots. Obi Wan cut two of his hands off way to fast, while in the labyrinth of evil and comics he makes quite a challenge for council members and makes short work of padawans and knights. So he should have been a bit more powerful in Rots in terms of fighting. I like the fact that he is kind of a coward in the movie, but they make him look like a wuss in the new clone wars series sometimes.

 

I think the sensible way to interpret this question is asking which version of the character works better with the film we have. The clear answer there, I think, is Tartakovsky's. While at times it falls prey to stylized excess, we're given an undeniably credible threat. We understand why the CIS puts any confidence in them to lead their troops. We know why the Jedi think that defeating him could end the war. We appreciate that it's actually a challenge for some of the most skilled Jedi warriors to overcome him.

None of those things are true of the character we saw in ROTS. He was incredibly clownish and cowardly. His most brilliant tactical move was an attempted ambush that was foiled before he even made it all the way out of the atmosphere and beyond low orbit. His best moment in personal combat was. . .he didn't have one. Allies and enemies alike treated with him complete contempt, and there was nothing to suggest he deserved better. This only made Obi-wan look mildly incompetent for struggling so much, and the action on Utapau seem like an obvious plot contrivance instead of an action the characters would have reasonably considered taking.

 

I personally like to think that the correct portrayal, even between TCW and CW, is the one that best matches Windu's description of him: "General Grievous will run and hide like he always does. He's a coward." In TCW, that's what we get. A cowardly character who's best as slipping through the fingers of the Jedi. He's not competent at all, and the reason he's a difficulty for the Jedi ISN'T because of his abilities, but how slippery he is. His best work is with deception and trickery. Not even the Separatist Council trusts that he can keep them out of harms way, but because he's an expert at keeping himself out of Republic hands, Sidious finds him useful. He's not meant to be anything more than a pawn to Sidious, one among the hundreds that Sidious employed during the War. Everything always comes down to Sidious, because to him it didn't really matter who won the war, what mattered was how much power he could build up because he's win either way. If the Separatist win, Sidious simply never reveals himself and rules as an Emperor. If the Republic won, Sidious declares himself an Emperor. Grievous doesn't need to be competent in the grand scheme of things.

 

i was really pissed off when i found out that general grievous wasnt the main antagonist of the third movie. he was being made out to be some big baddie who slaughtered jedi like in the cartoon and that he was going to be a real threat in the movie. but that didnt happen.

i was getting so excited when i read that he would be the main villain back when i read the movie news. but then he got killed off too easily and got replaced by anakin as the final boss of the movie. he should have been the main villain but he was a disappointment!!!

 

I agree that Grievous was poorly handled in the film, yet, Anakin rather had to be the major 'baddie' of RotS or else it wouldn't really live up to it's name or focus on it's point, Anakin's Fall. Nice that Grievous has a fan, though.

 

As a finale of the PT and a highlight of the saga, ROTS' slot for the main villain was reserved for Sidious. He exposes himself, sets Order 66 in motion and declares himself as the Emperor. On top of that, there was the issue of disposing Dooku and luring Anakin to his side. Grievous was useful within the limits of his role of supporting villain. He was never meant to be anything else as the Sith were main enemies throughout all the six movies.

 

Sidious and Anakin together, from RotS onwards they were the 'Big Bads'.

 

I agree that Grevious was not handled well. I would have preferred to see him destroyed in the beginning (as opposed to Dooku) and Dooku reserved for later (being killed by Anakin on his path to Vader).

 

but why couldnt they do something like the dark knight where grievous is the main antagonist throughout and then anakin turns to the dark side at the very end. the climax would have obi wan fighting grievous and anakin would be more of a minor threat. in the dark knight, the joker was the main villain and then two face was only minor.

but then what was his purpose?

why? dooku was already the villain in the second film!

 

Basically because it wasn't what the creators wanted. Besides, RotS was the *major* pivotal point of the Entire Saga and of Anakin and Sidious' arcs. It commenced the Dark Times and forged the beginning of the Galactic Empire. Grievous could've been handled/executed better but I agree he was crafted as a supporting villain. He even seemed to be an attempt at humour at points,

 

how was he a supporting villain? he practically did nothing for the plot and was unnecessary. they teased us! put him in for a good reason or dont do so at all!!!

i was expecting an epic fight, not just some one-sided victory for obi wan

 

Hey, relax. We all have possible disappointments with the films. If your are comparing/suggesting Grievous other portrayals differ from how he is in RotS, you're likely right. It happens to basically everyone in TCW and it's why I'm not fond of the series. Yet, we all have SW as we have it. I see you're upset and disappointed. But fitting isn't going to change how the Saga is. Matter of fact it's likely to be quite different now and henceforth because the Mouse Empire owns it. It is what it is.

 

In my opinion, I wish the prequels would have had a consistent villain throughout the trilogy. Be it Maul, Dooku, or Grievous. Yes, Sidious was there the whole time, but not in the same way that Vader was throughout the OT. The heroes didn't even know about him in the first 2.

 

That was the point, though. They weren't meant to. Sidious was working via deception and in the shadows.

 

He was the leader of the Separatist army, a figure of great importance to end the war. He was important to the plot; first to ''kidnap'' chancellor Palpatine, second, to amplify Anakin's frustration with the Jedi order when they decide to send Obi-Wan to destroy him and third, to split Anakin and Obi-Wan so that Palpy can do all his machinations with Anakin. I guess that the Republic percieved him as a head of a snake when they thought that killing him will end the war and Palpy used him to his own ends.

 

Considering that Sidious was already established as the main villain since TPM, I don't see how that could have happened. And honestly . . . I was never that impressed by Grievous. Too one-dimensional.

 

I don't really how you could make Grievous the main villain. He was a puppet to Palpatine and Dooku, not really anything much more.
They may have gotten you excited, but you can't blame them for not giving a supporting villain the main villain role of a film where he isn't even that needed.
A badly used and developed character.

 

Grievous is one of my least favourite SW characters. His role? Not short enough it was!

 

I actually like what they did with GG in the film, He serves a very important purpose in the film, He gets Obi-wan of Coruscant so Palpatine can turn Anakin. I like the idea that if Obi-wan was on Planet Anakin would probably not have turned. It also shows how Palpatine manuevered every detail to smallest degree. He made sure that the two Jedi who could have actually done something to prevent Anakin's fall Obi-wan and Yoda were off planet when he needed them to be.