PT What's Grievous' Actual Backstory?

Not meant as an insult to you or anybody personally, but whatever. The films are what they are (as Lucas once said) and they do indicate being a cyborg isn't all that it is cracked up to be. If the new canon wants to change the films it can, but I will still go by what is in the films. Personally Vader being rendered weaker makes sense since it helps explain why Palps wanted to replace him with Luke, a young healthy man with most of his limbs and midis intact (Lucas said Luke had the same midi count as Anakin had before losing so many parts).

If some disagree with the films and favor the new spinoff material take, that is fine, but it is going to make discussions problematic as their are narrative view conflicts arising from Disney's setup. Perhaps these forums will require rearranging to suit this situration as canon conflicts are going to increase.

 

Lucas didn't "show it in the films" though - the films say nothing about Vader's midichlorian count changing.

 

I could see GG not caring about health issues just to be stronger, like a weightlifter taking steroids.

Don't sweat it.

Thinking about this some more, I could see Vader finding ways to increase his focus in the darkside to compensate for his physical and midi handicaps. Even with a reduction in his midi count he still would have way more midis than anybody else except for Luke and Leia. I really don't want to go on a sidetrack here.

 

As Dave Filoni said in the 'Lair of Grievous' featurette:

"George [Lucas] had a lot of ideas about Grievous, where he thought Grievous came from and what he thought Grievous was about. One of the things was that he had really wanted to be a Jedi and that a lot of his abilities kind of mimic abilities a Jedi might have, or that his wanting power and his rejection of Jedi status drove him to have these modifications done to his body. It was more of an act of choice to become this thing than it was an accident in a shuttle crash."

 

You know, I do like that they directly referenced Darth Vader from A New Hope in this re-imagining of Grievous. People often mistake a character without some kind of tragic backstory as two dimensional. To make an effective villain, less is more. While some amount of sympathy adds gray area, there's nothing wrong with a villain that's just evil. In the real world, some people are just terrible just for the heck of it. Each film also had a very different portrayal of Darth Vader, and it seems appropriate that Grievous foreshadows the character we see in the original Star Wars.

The one thing about Grievous' original backstory was that it seemed like Dooku had more of a stake in Grievous' Jedi training. I guess everything could never be consolidated perfectly, but I commend the TCW staff for not trying to fill every single blank.

 

Grievous being trained by Dooku doesn't change since it's stated by Grievous himself in RotS.

 

I'm aware, I'm just saying that the backstory where Dooku essentially creates Grievous gives him more of an incentive to oversee his training directly

 

Well, as far as I am aware, the 'tragic' back-story does add more depth to his character in that it seems to have a greater effect on him personally (both in self-perception and perception by others), and it also supplies, in my opinion, a better motivation for his grievances, actions and why he would actually want to fight the Jedi. It is also more unique than the 'voluntary' story, thereby making him more distinctive as a villain; after all, Palpatine and Dooku are motivated by a lust for power, and making yet somebody else also motivated by power-seeking, in my mind, makes these characters merge together and become less distinct.
It's interesting what Gilroy says about his characterisation:

Technically, the reason why this is the case for Vader and the Emperor is that we actually see them being bad, which is not really the case (in the film, anyway) with Grievous. Consequently, the change in back-story appears to have been engineered to try create an attitude towards Grievous that Gilroy, Filoni and Lucas obviously want to see (namely, pure negative), but which did not occur due his character being written so poorly in the film, and which also would not have come out of the original back-story. Had it been worked into the films, the older (Visionaries) back-story could have been used to highlight both the evilness of Dooku and Palpatine, and also the corruption of the Republic.
To me, it appears a possibility that Lucas (who we may gather reckons that Grievous should be perceived almost entirely negatively) may have been unhappy with what other people did with the character (in the E.U.), and decided to try re-assert his own control over it, even if eliminates complexity and also the only portrayals of Grievous' actually being a serious threat to the republic and the Jedi. The cough, weakness and cowardice were obviously not part of his character when first designed, otherwise they would have appeared in Clone Wars. Rather, it appears that the visual design (which suits his Clone Wars portrayal more) and basic role were thought up first, and the coughing weak characterisation was arrived at some time later, possibly after he'd first appeared in the microseries, and simply tacked on.

Depending on what sort of villainy we are aiming at (e.g. Darth Vader vs. Dark Helmet), what the characters do is what I'd say makes them an effective villain, not how deep (or shallow) their story is. After all, I don't believe that adding the complex back-story to Vader makes him less effective a villain in the O.T., because he actually appears and acts evil. In fact, the original back-story in some ways reflects Vader/Skywalker's story better; both have seeds sown of their future enmities and motives, both undergo personal tragedy and transformation that 'sets' them on the course of evil, and both forget their true selves and are subsumed by the 'machine'.

 

Brilliant post by Darth Cricketer

When talking about the creation of General Grievous George Lucas has stated that he intended him in some ways to to foreshadow what Anakin would become, or to reflect his story. The Legends story, despite its being spread over multiple texts (and motives not being well explained) much more closely reflects Darth Vader's story, with one crucial difference. Grievous does not choose the path that his life would take, it is to a large extent forced upon him, and that is where the tragic element in his character lies, and what makes him a greyer character than Anakin/Vader, whose path to evil is voluntary.
The de-canonisation of his original backstory reduces him to another card-carrying villain when there are already plenty of those.
The original story has much more meaning and serves to augment the character of those involved whereas the new canon reduces his backstory to a few lines of expository dialogue. Character through exposition doesn't seem like real character to me, as you can't be emotionally invested in it. By reading his original story its possible to become emotionally connected with a rather unusual character even to the point of sympathy.
You can even take a lesson or two from it, one of mine being that great power and strength means nothing if it leads to ones life being entirely controlled by other. General Grievous is more or less a slave to Dooku's (and really Palpatine/Sidious') wishes.
Edit: I think this illustration and story sum up Grievous' position quite well. He has no independence.

One aspect of Grievous' story I would like to mention is that the original story has allowed people interpret his character, as opposed to other characters whose back stories provide the all the character they need. I like stories that are sympathetic to him (of course ) and I find that rather than showing him a mere stereotypical villain they show a divided character. His original backstory had his brain being a bit messed with, and people seem to take this as an opportunity to show a split personality, one in which what is left of his pre-transformation sensitivities are set against his new bloodlust and ruthlessness. Often there is a realisation point where he comes to know that his life is basically meaningless, that he's just a slave. And he is destroyed by his internal contradictions.
While some stories alter timelines (one even had him surviving on Utapau. Rather than shooting him Kenobi merely cuts off all his limbs), such an interpretation can be fitted into his old story. His new story makes such thing impossible, and as a result no depth can be added to what is in the film a very shallow character.


Edit: Sorry to user dARTh, but my attempt to tag the above post redirected to your name. oops.

 

Good post I agree, the sad thing about Grievous in the old EU was that he was always intended to be a pawn. He was suppose to be the monster that the Republic feared and his existence was used as an instrument for war and when Sidious was finally ready to end it, Grievous would be eliminated....

 

"One of the big issues behind Grievous was that I didn't want a big, powerful villain, I wanted a cunning, you know almost cowardly villain, who isn't super stronger, super powerful but at the same time, you know he's a good fighter but not ... everybody wants him to be bigger, stronger, more powerful than the other villains that we've had and keep ... you know going to the next level I wanted him to be slightly more like the Emperor, you know slightly more like the sleazy, behind-the-scenes kind of guy, that's why I set up the fact that he always runs at the end of every fight, he always gets away."

--George Lucas, ROTS DVD Commentary.

The EU only had character designs and a vague description of what he was going to be in the film. Lucas hadn't intended for him to be super powerful and the EU went in their own direction. But because he was the creator of the character and knew what his backstory was, that is why it was ignored. And while he did say that he was an allusion to Vader, he wasn't supposed to be that in character. Lucas didn't work with the publishing division to develop the story. If he had, it would have been similar to what is in TCW.

 

Perhaps I'll refer you to some of my posts on another thread:

I also referred to how other people developed the character (in the E.U., and Tartakovsky's version):

 

Darth Cricketer
Very good point on how Lucas has handled the character.
I don't get why people go the 'but it's George Lucas' creation' route when trying to defend some of his actions. It discounts all the work that all the others have put into the films, such as the actors and other writers and crew and so on. When making the original film in 1976, Lucas had lots of disagreements with Gilbert Taylor over the camerawork and basic effects. For example Lucas wanted heavy filtering over many of the live scenes, something Taylor opposed. And when the final result came out it can be seen that Taylor was right and Lucas was wrong. Should Lucas be credited for the visuals there?
So we come to General Grievous. Lucas asked for 'a droid general' (how broad), Warren Fu produced the artwork which Lucas chose, and the Tartakovsky team wrote and established his character. Is it really Lucas' creation, when most of the actual creating was done by other people? Sure he owns, or rather owned the character, but doesn't make his decisions right, and doesn't say that he created the character.
In the case of General Grievous Lucas was wrong to characterise him as he did. It detracted from the film and ruined what could have been a great character.

Edit: Apparently the tagging system doesn't recognise that you exist

 

Yes, it is Lucas's creation because he wrote the script for ROTS and established Grievous's character in 2002-2003. The character's EU appearances didn't happen until briefly in 2004 and then fully in 2005. Genndy didn't establish a backstory. That was Chuck Dixon and the folks in the publishing department who weren't told what his story was. Lucas has long said that he was never bound by what any writer that wasn't working for him wrote.

To tag someone, you need to copy the name displayed. DarthCricketer as one word.

 

Yeah I know. I was actually being that careless that I didn't realise there was no space

 

I'm sceptical he had the character worked out in 02/03. If he did, then that makes it even worse because it shows a rather incredible lack of communication.
And him saying he's not bound by other writers isn't an excuse for poor character handling. He should have payed attention to what people wanted and how the character was first received. A person who re-wrote a scene over the weekend during shooting without telling the actors in it should have the time to write a character to fit in with what was needed. To put it simply, there's no one to blame for Grievous's poor character and messy story other than George Lucas, and it's because of poor communication and ignoring other people on his part. He should have listened and collaborated more.
It doesn't matter when it was written, publishing meant that the Tartakovsky character was first.

Edit: And about GT not establishing a backstory, neither did GL in RotS. His literature established backstory was (I think) compatible with both characters, so it doesn't matter anyway.

 

"So how did Anakin get that scar, George?" asks John Knoll. "I don't know. Ask Howard," says George, referring to President of Lucas Licensing Howard Roffman. "That's one of those things that happens in the novels between the movies. I just put it there. He has to explain how it got there. I think Anakin got it slipping in the bathtub, but of course, he's not going to tell anybody that."

This was an exchange from the making of ROTS. Lucas worked things out, but he didn't always tell these stories to the publishing division. After all, he was the one who came up with Darth Bane and his backstory, but it was the bare bones material that's in the TPM novelization and what he's said over the years. The stuff from the comics and the novels were not his doing. We even see Lucas have different ideas which is why Bane looks different.

"The thing about science-fiction fans and "Star Wars" fans is they're very independent-thinking people. They all think outside the box, but they all have very strong ideas about what should happen, and they think it should be their way, which is fine, except I'm making the movies, so I should have it my way."

--George Lucas, Associated Press Interview 2004.


"Oh, it always hurts. It hurts a great deal. But part of making movies is you get attacked, and sometimes in very personal ways," says Lucas. "The point is, like if you paint your house white and somebody comes over, 'Well that should be a green house.' Well, fine, but I wanted to paint it white. I don’t think there was anything wrong with painting it white. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with me for painting it white. Maybe it should be a green house, but I didn’t want it to be a green house. I wanted it to be a white house.”

--George Lucas, 60 Minutes Interview 2005.

Lucas had ideas for what he wanted for his story. He was open to collaboration but only when it was something that would affect his work, i.e., working on the films. On the EU, he did not have the time to work with the publishing division. He let them go their own way. When he was involved in TCW, then he had his way.

 

And none of that rebuts the idea that he handled the character poorly, or that he didn't have effective communication. If you do it your way, people may not like that, and you have to bear the criticism. The quotes you have posted just prove that he can't take criticism seriously, thinks he's always correct and is contemptuous of his audience.

 

And he never, ever consulted other neighbours on the street who thought that a white house would be an eyesore. The problem is that he clearly shows that he believes that Star Wars is entirely up to him, and that nothing of what anyone else thinks, likes, suggests or takes away from seeing Star Wars matters in any way. In fact, such quotes strike me as very self-serving or even narcissistic: "no-one else matters, only I do. And when I find people object or have other suggestions, I'm going to tell them to ---- off."
Also, his decision to react to criticism in such a petulant manner is not going to to make endearing to those who don't think as highly of Lucas as he does. The reason it may seem personal to him is that he probably reacted poorly to early criticism of these things, and these reactions got people questioning his character as well; "why did he respond to our criticism like that?" It also appears that he identifies so strongly with his work in Star Wars that he has probably lost the separation between the films and his own personal ideas (fantasies? stories? imagination?). Star Wars is something distributed to a mass audience; if he is going to take it so personally, he should simply write stories that he keeps in his drawer (although doing that would have, however, meant a great loss to Western/Anglo-American culture).

 

While Grievous backstory in the old EU is tragic,how is Grievous a tragic character in the micro series? Have i missed something every time I've watched that show? Do i need to read several comics and books to understand that the character is supposed to be tragic?

 

He isn't, (not even close) although the lack of backstory in his depicted leaves open the possibility (same goes with episode III). It's a shame that his character was developed so little in the major releases (CW and Ep III) in the 04/05 period though. Now we have two backstories, neither consistent with each other, or even with themselves to some extent.

I must say (for 25th time) that I do prefer the tragic backstory, but from his film and CW depiction you can this.

 

Grievous character seems to be developed mostly in books and comics in the old EU, so hopefully the new canon will do the same.

What is Grievous second backstory? I know the tragic EU one, and i guess the second one is from Lair of Grievous, not sure though

 

CIS Droid nailed it. Also you missed my funny edit!
Not sure the new EU will be developing him though. The current focus seems to be more on the early empire period and might shift even later as time goes by (such as the rise of the first order etc). I'm afraid he may end up one of those unexplained characters, which would be very sad. If anything is done I doubt it would be for a while, and it would probably be low-key and not very interesting (compared to his old story). That's just how seems to roll.

 

The second back-story is that he chose to become what he was to give him the skills of a Jedi (combat-wise) for some reason or something. This story is more through guessing and innuendo based on lines scattered through the ether of The Clone Wars (and possibly other places, I don't know), but statements by members of the Lucasfilm creative staff and treatment in places such as the Star Wars Wiki indicate that this is to be considered 'canon'.
The only advantage I see to this change is that it makes Grievous' portrayal in R.O.T.S. seem a little less 'unfair'. Of course, that would also have been the point behind the change as with the tragic back-story, we (or I) keep thinking, "How come things from this didn't get put in the film?", or, "How come this doesn't affect his character?" or "Couldn't he have been written more deeply or more 'fairly'?"

 

I hope the prequel era won't be ignored, it would be a shame if it did. i dont want the new canon to only be about Empire/first order vs Rebels/resistance. I want the new canon to flesh out the universe in between the movies.

I hope Grievous gets fleshed out. I am a fan of both the tragic backstory, and the hinted backstory in Lair of Grievous so i can go either way.

That was a funny edit

Thanks, if that is his other backstory, i think its easy to have it co-exist with the old backstory.