PT Why Are The PT Films criticized? (catch-all thread)

Yes, I usually scratch my head when people complain that Grievous came out of no where, or that he was underused.

Came out of no where? The Clone Wars only started at the end of AOTC, and when we get into ROTS, they have been going on for years. We wouldn't have seen any of their military structure at the end of AOTC. Certainly in that time the Seps would have created a leadership hierarchy for their military. Plus the Star Wars movies, even back to the OT, are built on the never ending supply of bad guys that seem to pop up for each movie.

Underused? In a series of movies that goes through bad guys like toilet paper... Tarkin, Jabba, Veers, Moff Jerjerrod, Piett, Ozzel, Motti, Needa, Greedo, Boba Fett, Bib Fortuna, Darth Maul, Jango Fett, Dooku, Poggle etc etc etc.. For anyone to think that Grievous was going to be some kind of structured and developed villain seems to fall in the realm of delusions of grandeur... Or even possibly complaining for the sake of complaining, after the fact...

I love that moment as well. In fact, there is a gentleman I work with who is named Roger, and I whenever we pass each other, I usually greet him with a "Roger, Roger". One day he stopped and asked why I always say that to him. In my Star Wars filled world, I forget that some people have never seen a Star Wars movie (shocking I know), so I had to explain to him why I was saying it... I got a strange look, and the sarcastic "oooooo k"...

 

Dooku admittedly could have been utilised more, but I wouldn't say that his reduced role was necessarily caused by the inclusion of Grievous.
Dooku is disposed of quite dismissively by Anakin, this is important to Anakin's fall. That this seemingly complex and important character is reduced to the role of simply Vader's first cold-blooded killing, and abruptly goes from dominant and menacing to quite pathetic. Anakin trying to quell his fear of him and embrace hatred. The quick and easy path.

I would argue Grievous's importance is more his great relevance to the plot than him being an effective villain in the traditional sense.

If you look at the ROTS opening crawl, it is from the pov of the Republic. The war is an illusion, and what is really happening underneath is not made at all clear to the viewer. Grievous is a HUGE part of this element of the film.

First thing you notice is Dooku is labeled as the Sith Lord behind the war, and Palpatine their hostage rather than the mastermind. Dooku and Grievous are ultimately going to take the fall for Sidious, unbeknownst to them. Grievous's move is "stunning" to the citizens of the Republic, but Sidious and Dooku orchestrated it, and Grievous is unaware he isn't much more in on the grand plan than the Republic itself.
Even the Jedi are repeatedly implored to focus on defeating the Separatists led by Dooku and Grievous, often taking the focus completely off Palpatine as anything but a charismatic leader until way too late in the game.

(Off-topic, also showing the obvious disparity between Anakin's loyalty to his friends and loved ones, and Obi-Wan's stricter focus on their assigned task. Also... "A lot of simple tricks and nonsense" vs the force's will? The Jedi clouded?)

The opening dialogue mentions that they are heading for Grievous's ship (contrast this to a more unveiled Emperor "overseeing the final stages of construction" of the DSII.) And even when they arrive and sense Dooku, and "a trap", they are still confident that their mission to "save" Palpatine is running smoothly. Anakin also shows concern for Palpatine's safety when they find him, under the veil that Palpatine was actually in danger at the hands of the brutish, but much less powerful than Palpatine, Grievous.
This will of course culminate with an overconfident Obi-Wan ("Spring the trap!") easily taken out of the fight and not conscious to see Anakin kill a defenseless Dooku.

I know I'm really stressing this, but a lot regarding Grievous is relevant to his blindness to his faction's own place in the grand scheme. "Count Dooku predicted" which is obviously more relevant to Palpatine's foresight. In this sense, he isn't a viable threat to the Jedi because, well, he isn't one. Palpatine strings Grievous along until he eventually reveals his location to the Jedi and lets the Jedi take care of Grievous for him. It's win-win, if Grievous proves actually competent he will kill Obi-Wan and rid Palpatine of that hindrance. If Obi-Wan wins, it ties up that loose end.
Either way he has served his purpose; Palpatine heroically leads the Republic to victory against the Separatists, the Jedi are spread thin and slowly reduced in numbers as Palpatine has them fighting a false war for him, and Obi-Wan is sent away from Anakin making it easier for Palpatine to corrupt him.
Obi-Wan's name being dropped at several times reflects this connection to Anakin's conscience. Obi-Wan being absent from the Tusken massacre, Dooku's death, and Mace's death. Anakin repeatedly assuring Padme they can get by without Obi-Wan's help, Anakin wanting to do everything alone a metaphor for the Sith focus on one's self for power. Palpatine specifically mentioning Obi-Wan after Anakin's pledge to the dark side to assure Anakin is willing to sever all ties to his past self. Vader's delusion Obi-Wan has corrupted Padme. And Vader taking great satisfaction in finally killing Obi-Wan in ANH. Grievous is used by Sidious to influence the Jedi to willingly send Obi-Wan away alone.

Again, both Grievous and the Jedi conversing in terms reflecting the pov of those that think the war is real.

Manufactured civil war vs real civil war.
Grievous threatening the life of "friend" Palpatine vs Jabba threatening life of true friend Han.

Grievous's role in the film is more complex than even he realises himself.

Both Grievous and Obi-Wan are focused on their apparent mission. Ones that only exist to continue (temporarily) destabilising the Republic and ultimately to turn Anakin.

This deleted excerpt from Grievous's arrival on Utapau intentionally parallels Gunray in TPM. Both referred to as "cowards" by the Jedi. From a point of view, Grievous is really just a battle-proficient Gunray in a suit. He is to lead the droid arm(ies) and ultimately be disposed of.
Palpatine tricks the Jedi into ordering Obi-Wan to head to Utapau and take out Grievous, then orders Vader to head to Mustafar to take out Gunray and the Separatist leaders. Vader's task is much more cold-blooded and brutal, but from a point of view both tasks stem from a similar philosophy - "So uncivilised!"



The main role of Grievous relative to Palpatine.

The importance of this arc, which I have posted on repeatedly, was initially pointed out to me by TFN user mikeximus.
Palpatine's entire scheme kind of reflects in moments where he mentions Grievous. Regarding the fact that he quite obviously times the beginning, duration, and end of the war to his whim.
Like I mentioned earlier, the Jedi are wasting their time and power looking for the enemy outside the Republic. They basically help Palpatine win.

Palpatine's mention that the Senate will continue the war until the end of Grievous is a point of view truth; it is true, but is ultimately Palpatine's doing.

Later, with Anakin on the Council (increasing the tension largely because of the Jedi's mistrust of the two and Anakin's secret mission to spy on Palpatine), he then reveals Grievous's location to the Jedi. Fittingly timed just before he reveals to Anakin the existence of Sith powers to cheat death.

Palpatine, Anakin, and the Jedi all seem on board with ending the war through force.



Relevant to the Jedi trying to one-up the Chancellor but inadvertently doing his bidding...

Like the Outer Rim sieges in general.

Again ironic because everyone is in Palpatine's grip, and Grievous is being played for a fool.



This just for relevance to the Jedi's intentions, and with emphasis on the fact Mace waits for Cody and Anakin to leave before divulging:

On receiving this info, and expecting Grievous's death, Palpatine now reveals his identity to Anakin. Anakin almost kills Palpatine then decides to hand him over to the Council.
Grievous is then destroyed by Obi-Wan - Grievous puts up a fight, but it is really a foregone conclusion.

Expecting Palpatine to stick to his word and return power on Grievous's death, Mace is already heading to his office for this purpose when Anakin intercepts him and tells him who Sidious really is.
The way the script is written it becomes obvious that Palpatine set up the whole confrontation with Mace in his office, the timing of everything Palpatine says regarding Grievous has indicated this.

Leading the Jedi on a hunt for Grievous is intertwined with setting everything up to end when he desires and give him the best chance to both seize control and turn Anakin. Without Grievous's significant place in the script Palpatine's plan comes across as guesswork and far more random.

Actually agree with that, the "heroes on both sides" is more presented as a concept than actually shown with characters. The greying of the story is there if you look at the overarching plot, but you are right, we don't really see anything from the Separatists view. Just that they are pawns that are ultimately betrayed by Palpatine, like everyone else.

 

I always liked this explanation better than simply Sidious ordering the clones. I haven't read the novels but the idea of Sifo Dyas actually ordering the clone army out of fear, then Dooku betraying him and stealing the army seemed so cool.

Well said, I really enjoy these analogies Cryo.

Roger

 

And I find Maul or Griev far less interesting and way more shallow.
They are poster boys of style over substance, all surface and no depth.

[/QUOTE]

I do not find much of a challenge in chasing after a coward who runs all the time.
You could maybe replace Griev with a runaway dog that Obi-Wan is chasing through most of the film.

@Visivious Drakarn

How exactly is Griev used to bring Anakin to the dark side? That Obi-Wan is busy with him?
Not much there in my opinion. There are any number of other ways this could be done.
Dooku was used far better in that regard.
And what is new about Griev? Cyborgs aren't new, that non-Force sensitives can kill Jedi is not new either.
That he has four arms is a bit new but that is more like a gimmick than an actual character. Give him four arms to compensate for his lack of character.

@mikeximus

Well I think he was underused. All he did was be someone that Obi-Wan had to chase so that Anakin would be alone on Coruscant. He was not interesting on his own, he was no threat, he wasn't challenging or offered much in the way of character depth.
You could have Obi-wan be ordered to go to a seps stronghold and find some secret war plans, which the republic could use to win the war. So Obi-Wan goes and Anakin is left alone.
Same result really.

Griev would have a very natural introduction in AotC. The seps have been building their new army for a while.
They knew from TPM that droids controlled by a ship was a weakness so they made them more independent. And they realized that the droids needed better commanders. Plus they made some new droids, the super battle droids.
Enter Griev.

He could replace the techno union guy at Dooku's meeting. He is there, talks a bit and later he is in the arena and two Jedi corner him and go after Dooku but Griev quickly takes them down, creating a surprise and shows that he is a Jedi killer.
Then instead of Nute, Dooku talks tactics with Griev and what their plans are. Griev could say that they have no way to win this battle but they should send out some droids as a diversion to make sure the ships can get into space. This showing that Griev has some tactical skills.
You could play the Geonosis fight as a battle of wits between him and Yoda. Attack, counter attack, move, counter move.
In all, this would build him up quite well to RotS and make him less of a joke.

Comparing Griev with Veers, Ozzel, Needa, Bib Fortuna? Not a good comparison I feel.
Griev is way more important plot wise than them, he is mentioned in the crawl and quite a bit of the plot of RotS is focused on him.
Veers and co and just named imperials, someone to provide exposition or someone that Vader can talk to or choke as it might be.
Phasma could be compared to Veers or Ozzel.
Or that unnamed FO officer that tells Kylo that the droids has escaped and Kylo looses it.
I would not even call them secondary villains, more like tertiary or quaternary villains.

In case you missed it, Jabba was mentioned in both ANH and ESB so he was built up way more.
Same with the Emperor, he was mentioned in ANH, seen a little in ESB and then RotJ was his big part.
Now neither of those are terribly deep or complex characters but they are way better than then the shallow character that Griev is. At least to me.
And you are right, Maul, Dooku, they are underused, more is the pity.
I think the PT could have benefitted with them getting more fleshed out. Same with Griev.

As to why people aren't satisfied with them, well maybe some don't want to settle for mediocrity when they have seen that SW is capable of better.
Vader in ANH, one could say a secondary villain with not that much screen time. I think that Griev might have more screen time and certainly he is more important plot wise and the good guys focus on him more.
And yet Vader has more of a character, way more backstory and personal ties to both Luke and Obi-Wan.

Lastly, unlike the OT, Lucas knew that he had three movies so he could plan ahead.
So he could introduce characters in one film and then use them in the next.
And at times he did this, like Mace and Bail.
So why not do it with the villains?

And I have often heard from those that defend the PT that those films are so much more complex and intricate. That the plot and characters are so much more developed and deep.
So why do we have a bunch of disposable, shallow, one-dimensional villains?
If you feel that the OT had these underdeveloped villains, why not try and make them a bit more layered and developed in the PT?

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

I also think it's a folly when someone confuses "new" with "better." Kylo Ren isn't new, but then really all "stories" have already been told. Whether someone emulates Shakespeare, etc. What matters is the character's connection to us, and to the story being told. Kylo Ren has a history, is connected, and clearly has motivations, even if there's still a mystery about them. Grievous is slapped on like an old video game level boss fight. He has little to no substance on his own. He has no connection to the characters, no history with them, and no greater echo within the plot. Symbolically, sure, he's a proto-Vader, but that symbolism without connection serves nothing.

 

Did you not read my post. He is ingrained in the ROTS plot, Palpatine's plan is pretty random without him.

 

Just because a cog makes a machine work does not make that cog interesting or lend it depth.

Edit: Also, the "new" thing was a direct response to Visivious' earlier post, not yours.

 

Fair enough. I do agree he is pretty one dimensional characterisation wise, but I think the complexity of his role as Palpatine's puppet is quite impressive to behold. Palpatine is doing so much while appearing on the surface to do very little.

Edit - And I think the perhaps obviousness or simplicity of Grievous himself is kind of an irony of the character. He talks big but has little vision or insight into what is truly transpiring. Even the sometimes near omniscient Jedi are practically blind at this stage, and Grievous is MANY tiers down from them.

There is also kind of a paradox in him being part droid and part organic - Palpatine really treats him like just a droid in the grand scheme of things, it is like Grievous has a futile grasp on his organic origins and as more machine than alien is really just going through the motions. The force only being generated by the living and all.

 

Just that.

Realization.

For some reason you are conflating that directly with development or impact.

One is not directly in line with the other. By that logic many SW characters are very "underdeveloped" in the course of one movie. Is Vader "developed" in ANH? Not really but he is wonderfully realized and Grievous is the same.

I realize it's not entirely separate but depends on what the character is supposed to mean in the story of the movie.

Boba Fett is a cool looking suit like Phasma. Fine but in terms of actual realization Phasma is maybe the biggest loser ever.

Boba Fett is not entirely useless but still minor.

Grievous is of major importance to the drive of the story plus is wonderfully funny and terrifying at the same time.

More often than not Lucas gets it right especially with villains like ANH Vader, Maul, Dooku, Jango, Grievous, Zam etc.

So in terms of multiple factors of importance to the story, other characters as well as the actual total realization Grievous is pretty amazing.

In relation to so other characters, like Tarkin for instance, his realization and even development is far stronger. Now Tarkin works because they got Cushing (thank goodness!)

That is a whole other aspect of the prequels with their both overt and hidden visual imagery messaging and symbolism.

Why did Lucas do this? Why not a man in a suit or just another human? Why make him this cowardly heel when everyone else ever would have made him a badass?

But instead of asking why the man who created Darth Vader for ANH (in his original non-Anakin form) as a badass didn't do the same with Grievous all that happens for some is lament that he didn't do the same thing with a character who clearly echoes Vader. Besides more than the basic fact that armored Vader does appear at the end of the movie.

I don't see the connection of comparing Kylo Ren to Grievous or many others in SW including Han Solo. What is so important about Han?

Not much until TFA. In terms of Luke he really is a "plot device" character (and even then in TFA that is what he is for Kylo Ren). He is Luke's "best friend" character.

OK but what real character impact does he have on Luke outside of plot? Not much at all. Now compare the true central characters like Anakin and Luke and then ask who is REALLY important? It's not Han.

Sidious, Obi-Wan, Yoda, Padme, Qui-Gon, Shmi among others.

 

Well, one or two lines aside, most of the dialogue concerning him probably wouldn't be much changed if Grievous was just an ordinary bloke (and he is no different a pawn in Palpatine's plans than all of the others involved); his nature is really dwelt upon. As such, I tend to regard any such 'symbolism' as coming after the fact.

 

I do not find much of a challenge in chasing after a coward who runs all the time.
You could maybe replace Griev with a runaway dog that Obi-Wan is chasing through most of the film.

What a shallow strawman argument, the irony here. GG would be more akin to the one arm man from the fugitive. The villain the hero needs to capture who allows slips from his grasp. GG only runs when he reslizes he is in over his head and can't win, so he retreats which is sensible. A dog doesn't command legions of battle droids either, or has a metal body that can punch dents into ships. He did try to kill Obi-Wan several times in the film and nearly did kill him a couple of times. GG at least has enough brains to know when to retreat and fight another day nor was he defeated by an completely untrained novice like Kylo which is both pathetic and absurd. It also eliminates any threat possibility about him since he is so easy to defeat despite years of training. Even GG posed a threat which a villain is supposed to do, both Kylo and Plasma fall flat on their faces in that department.

@Visivious Drakarn

How exactly is Griev used to bring Anakin to the dark side? That Obi-Wan is busy with him?
Not much there in my opinion. There are any number of other ways this could be done.
Dooku was used far better in that regard.
And what is new about Griev? Cyborgs aren't new, that non-Force sensitives can kill Jedi is not new either.
That he has four arms is a bit new but that is more like a gimmick than an actual character. Give him four arms to compensate for his lack of character.

In the film he is clever and resourceful enough to escape from the Jedi on the bridge by breaking the window, a character trait. When escaping he doesn't care about running over his own troops and purposely runs over clones, showing he has low regard for his comrades and is bloodthisty to kill the enemy whenever possible and also shows how petty he is too, all of which are character traits. When he escapes from his crashing ship he lunches all the other escape pods to try to kill Obi Wan, at least he is persistent.

@mikeximus

Well I think he was underused. All he did was be someone that Obi-Wan had to chase so that Anakin would be alone on Coruscant. He was not interesting on his own, he was no threat, he wasn't challenging or offered much in the way of character depth.
You could have Obi-wan be ordered to go to a seps stronghold and find some secret war plans, which the republic could use to win the war. So Obi-Wan goes and Anakin is left alone.
Same result really.

Griev would have a very natural introduction in AotC. The seps have been building their new army for a while.
They knew from TPM that droids controlled by a ship was a weakness so they made them more independent. And they realized that the droids needed better commanders. Plus they made some new droids, the super battle droids.
Enter Griev.



He could replace the techno union guy at Dooku's meeting. He is there, talks a bit and later he is in the arena and two Jedi corner him and go after Dooku but Griev quickly takes them down, creating a surprise and shows that he is a Jedi killer.
Then instead of Nute, Dooku talks tactics with Griev and what their plans are. Griev could say that they have no way to win this battle but they should send out some droids as a diversion to make sure the ships can get into space. This showing that Griev has some tactical skills.
You could play the Geonosis fight as a battle of wits between him and Yoda. Attack, counter attack, move, counter move.
In all, this would build him up quite well to RotS and make him less of a joke.

None of that works and it seems you misunderstand quite a bit about the PT and CIS. Dooku started the CIS to lure in the big guilds like the TF and TU. This is the Sith can gather them together to control them and pit them against the Jedi, then to dispose of them later. Dooku doesn't care about the CIS winning, he only cares about starting a war and setting up the guilds to be thrown under the bus. The Sith are acting like The Producers, they don't someone too good who would win the false war. They somebody just competent enough to keep the war an ongoing stalemate but incompetent enough to not win it while also easily lead on and controlled.

Comparing Griev with Veers, Ozzel, Needa, Bib Fortuna? Not a good comparison I feel.
Griev is way more important plot wise than them, he is mentioned in the crawl and quite a bit of the plot of RotS is focused on him.
Veers and co and just named imperials, someone to provide exposition or someone that Vader can talk to or choke as it might be.
Phasma could be compared to Veers or Ozzel. Comparing her to them is an insult, she is probably the most cowardly SW character ever. Veers was at least brave and effective. 8
Or that unnamed FO officer that tells Kylo that the droids has escaped and Kylo looses it.
I would not even call them secondary villains, more like tertiary or quaternary villains.

In case you missed it, Jabba was mentioned in both ANH and ESB so he was built up way more.
Same with the Emperor, he was mentioned in ANH, seen a little in ESB and then RotJ was his big part.
Now neither of those are terribly deep or complex characters but they are way better than then the shallow character that Griev is. At least to me.
And you are right, Maul, Dooku, they are underused, more is the pity.
I think the PT could have benefitted with them getting more fleshed out. Same with Griev.

Except the build up for Jabba doesn't explain his character, only his connection to the heros (Han owes him money). It doesn't explain why Jabba is such a sadist and pervert which makes up his entire characterization. Also why does Han wait 3 years to pay him off? Besides pissing Jabba off worse, he probably would demand insane interest as money loses value over time. Overall, Jabba doesn't have any more character development than GG despite being important to Han's storyarc and the plot of both TESB and ROTJ.


As to why people aren't satisfied with them, well maybe some don't want to settle for mediocrity when they have seen that SW is capable of better.
Vader in ANH, one could say a secondary villain with not that much screen time. I think that Griev might have more screen time and certainly he is more important plot wise and the good guys focus on him more.
And yet Vader has more of a character, way more backstory and personal ties to both Luke and Obi-Wan.

The question is how much backstory does GG need before weighing down the main plot ? Lucas is very concerned about maintaining a good flow and avoiding the plot from bogging down. Sometimes less is more with uncritical details.


Lastly, unlike the OT, Lucas knew that he had three movies so he could plan ahead.
So he could introduce characters in one film and then use them in the next.
And at times he did this, like Mace and Bail.
So why not do it with the villains?

He did with Palps, Dooku, and Nute. Mainly Lucas wanted to show how Palps has a history of disposing his minions like Dooku, GG, Nute, and even attempted with Vader.

And I have often heard from those that defend the PT that those films are so much more complex and intricate. That the plot and characters are so much more developed and deep.
So why do we have a bunch of disposable, shallow, one-dimensional villains?
If you feel that the OT had these underdeveloped villains, why not try and make them a bit more layered and developed in the PT?

Because that is the style of Star Wars, to help the series rhyme with itself and they are only as one dimensional as you want them to be.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor[/quote]

 

Yikes. I actually think Ben Skywalker is Anakin done right. I couldn't disagree with you more if it was even possible. Also, his look is the recycled style of Darth Revan more than Vader's, hehe. Though I'm actually kind of amazed how "no-frills" the costume designs were in the film, outside of Phasma, who looks like her own action figure limited edition variant. (I really hope she gets some better stuff in the rest of the ST).

 

OK, let's go step by step.

- The opening crawl states that Grievous it fiendish droid leader. That is shown in the movie. With the death of Count Dooku, finding him was a priority for the Jedi and the Senate will vote to continue the war as long as he's there. He's important for the plot.
- Palpatine puts Anakin as his representative in the Jedi Council. To Palpy that's one step in his plan, to Anakin it's honor while the JC didn't take that easily.
- Palpatine tells Anakin that Grievous is hiding in the Utapau system. Of course, he would worry about the collective wisdom of the council if they didn't select him for that assignment.
- Anakin informs the JC about Grievous' hiding place and the chancellor's request that he leads the campaign. Being irritated by his very presence in the Council, they decide to send a master.
- Anakin comes to Palpatine's office. Palpatine looks sad about the JC not trusting Anakin. He's frustrated, Palpatine makes his move - he reveals himself. With his trust to the Council now disrupted, Anakin does what he does.

Grievous was an important figure, Palpatine successfully manipulated him and Anakin in order to get what he wanted, one dead, the other on his side. Obi-Wan's departure from Coruscant was not that important.

This is a what if question, so there's no real answer.

No, cyborgs aren't new, but a character with four arms that wields four lightsabers is new. You may try to undermine that by statement that he has no character, but he is different.

Throughout the PT he introduced the villains for the OT. Isn't that enough?

The main villain in the OT is Darth Vader. Overall, he's a failure of a villain. He failed to kill Obi-Wan, failed to prevent the destruction of the DS, failed to turn Luke and bring him to the Emperor, failed to crush the Rebels. His character got more depth in TESB and in ROTJ so he's not really underdeveloped... Well, at least after the PT.

What happened in the PT? Except Palpatine, the villains are not the main characters. Palpatine is behind everything evil that happens in the PT, the Trade Federation guys, Maul, Dooku and Grievous are just brute force. Maul is the face of the dark side, Dooku is an ex Jedi, Grievous is a cyborg, everything Anakin is about to become. Palpy changes them when he finds more powerful potential to be his apprentice, just like he did in ROTJ. Lucas concentrated on other things in the PT, on Anakin and his emotions when dealing with his master, his wife and Palpatine, that was the main story, not Palpatine's apprentices.

 

Guess we will have to agree to disagree then as I found Kylo as Anakin done all wrong and sloppy. Most of Kylo's character is based on his connection with Han, take that away and he is pretty much just an generic cartoon villain. The only reason to have him wear a pointless mask is for nostalgia and marketing purposes, especially since it appears to be the only piece of armor he wears. I hope Plasma gets a overhauled personality next film too, better yet, change the FO stormtroopers back to clones like the Republic / Empire used.

About the most nonsensical character is Finn. First why did the FO downgrade from cloning to abducting children to brainwash into troops? Especially since they have the resources to do it as Kylo stated to Hux, along with the resources to build bigger and badder superweapons to outdo the old Empire? Brainwashed child soldiers just don't turn chicken and defect that quickly. Part of their early training is to execute prisoners to desensitize them to violence and death at a early age. Finn would have been quite used to horrors and he would not even recognize them as horrors, just doing his job.

Samuel Vimes, while cyborgs aren't new, a near complete cyborg like GG is. There isn't much left of him compared to Vader who still had his head and torso. GG has an entirely cyborg body, not just limbs and lungs like with Vader. He also highlights how becoming a cyborg isn't a improvement, as we see he is in pain and constantly wezzes and coughs, he is sickly and his quality of life is reduced. Vader is similar, behind the scary mask is a sick and broken man who is rendered less than he was and why Palps wanted to replace him with a young, healthy, and mostly complete Luke. Somebody who isn't a sickly kitbashed hackjob like GG and Vader.

 

Very little of what you write here is actually connected with Griev causing Anakin to turn.
Palpatine putting him on the council but the other Jedi not making him a Master thus making Anakin angry and resenting the JC. Nothing to do with Griev.
Then the Jedi ask Anakin to spy on Palpatine, which he doesn't like and makes him doubt the JC's intentions, furthering the rift. Palpatine is later able to get Anakin to admit this and he exploits that.
So Palpatine knows very well that Anakin's faith in the council is shaken.
Again not connected to Griev.

That they did not send him to get Griev, that was a very minor part.

Also the big reason for Anakin's turn is Padme and his fears about her dying.
That is the one reasons he turns, he was all for arresting Palpatine but when Mace went for the kill and Anakin was desperate to get the secret that Palpatine had been dangling in front of him, he turned.

So Anakin's turn has very little if anything to do with Griev.

I disagree, Obi-Wan not being there was quite important. Of all the Jedi, he was the one that Anakin was closest to. Had Obi-Wan been there then I think he would gone to him rather than Yoda and ask about his fears about someone dying. And I think that Obi-Wan would have given a less cold and uncaring answer than Yoda.

I think you misunderstand, I am talking about what happened IN the movies.
In AotC Anakin felt anger at what Dooku had done and later Dooku chopped his arm off, putting more fule on that fire.
Then they fight in RotS and Anakin gives in to his anger and makes himself stronger with the Dark side and beats Dooku. Finally he obeys Palpatine's orders and coldly murders a helpless Dooku.
All of this pushed Anakin towards turning.
And far more than Griev ever did.

A CG-guy with four arms isn't new, Dex had that in AotC.
Using more than one lightsaber is likewise not new.
In short, four arms and four lightsabers I see as little more than a gimmick.
A way for the audience to go "Keewl".
Had his four arms been used in some way, say he is backed into a corner and unveils them and wins.
But no, he shows off and is all cocky and then Obi-Wan quickly beats him and cuts off some of those arms.

If the PT films are made to work as their own films with interesting characters good and bad, no.
Having three films whose only job is to introduce OT characters, that seems to set your ambition very low.
I don't understand this resistance against having good, well-developed and interesting villains in the PT.
Why settle for one-dimensional cardboard cut outs when you you could make something so much more?
Why be afraid of having well developed villains just because Vader is coming?

To me, a good villain isn't based on whether he/she wins or not. I find Agent Smith in the first Matrix film to be a good villain and he gets defeated at the end. The terminator in the first Terminator film is also an effective villain but it also looses at the end.
Both those I've mentioned are shown to be very credible threats and are very much a danger to the heroes and one they really have to struggle to overcome.

Vader was not underdeveloped even after ANH. We got some backstory on him and he is connected to both the main character, Luke and to Luke's mentor/father figure, Obi-Wan.
He does have a character, he is ruthless, quick thinking, doesn't take crap from other imperials but does listen to Tarkin and Tarkin listens to him. He is confident but still has something to prove against his old master.
Vader became an iconic villain after just the first film and that was no coincidence.

[/QUOTE]

Vader isn't the main character in any OT film either so that excuse doesn't wash.
In ANH he might not even be the main villain but he gets more development and backstory than Maul, Dooku and Griev put together.
Lucas knew that a good hero is complemented with a good villain. And in many cases, the hero is made better by the quality of his/her villain.
Ex, compare Dock Ock in Spiderman 2 and the Lizard in the Amazing Spiderman.
Who is the better villain? I would say the former and I would also say that is the better film.
Amazing Spiderman isn't a bad film in my view but the villain wasn't good.
Or take Thor 2 and the Dark elves there. I found the main bud guy there totally uninteresting, he wants to destroy the whole universe for....reasons. Ugh. Thankfully Loki is quite good.

To sum up, that Lucas focused on other things and had a bunch of shallow, uninteresting and underdeveloped villains in the PT. Well maybe that could answer the OP's question, why are the PT films criticized?
People found the villains really poor. And it is no excuse that Lucas made them poor.
If a eat at a restaurant and get a badly cooked meal, it doesn't get better if the chef says that they made it bad on purpose.

@Slicer87

Kylo is a fanatic, way more fanatical than the other dark side users we have seen.
To them, the Dark side was a means to an end, a power to use to get what they wanted.
Kylo goes beyond that. He is more of a crusader.
And his costume and lightsaber is made to somewhat resemble a crusaders.
And the group that he leads, The KNIGHTS of Ren. Invoking allusions to Templar Knights.
Also, in the other films, the dark side users were Lords. Kylo is now a Knight. A title that used to belong the Jedi.

Kylo is also shown as very loyal to Snoke. In the past, the other Sith apprentices were scheming to kill their master and make themselves Master. Kylo is seemingly uninterested in that.
He has total faith in Snoke. Which again paints him as a fanatic that blindly follows the wise leader.
This is also reflected in the FO. Hux also seems quite fanatical and most of their officers are young and so they come across as more of fanatical terrorists than an ordered military.

That Kylo has a major fixation on Vader, his grandfather, that is different.
He is a fanboy in some ways, he looks up to Vader, wants to be like him.
This is different from the other dark siders, they wanted the power their masters had but they didn't want to become them.

I see Kylo as quite lost, he doesn't really know what he wants. Part of him is convinced of the dark path but another part of him resists. He is aware of this and it bothers him, he wants to be a true believer but he knows deep down that he isn't. That is why he gets the idea to kill his father, maybe that will end his crisis of faith. But it doesn't, it makes it worse.
That he is lost and doesn't know what he wants also reflects on his search for an identity. He has embraced Vader and tries to be like him to compensate for his own lack of self.

This insecurity is shown in many ways with Kylo. He dresses and sounds intimidating so he wants to be feared but he uses this to hide his insecurity. This is also why he quickly breaks down and looses it when things don't go his way.
I can see why people might not like that. They want cool, bad*** villains.
The other bad guys in SW were almost always strong, confident and very secure in themselves and who they were. Vader has some doubts in RotJ and is less confident than before.
Kylo is not. He wants to be like that but he can't. Again I can see how that rubs people the wrong way.

In all, plenty new as far as I am concerned and with Kylo, I have no idea where they are going with him.
Is he going to be redeemed? Possibly but I can also see that they don't do that.
In short, I am way more curious about him than Maul or Griev.

Except the one arm guy from the fugitive isn't featured nearly as much as Griev is.
In the Fugitive, the protagonist has to both evade the law and try to find some proof of his innocence.
Not comparable at all with Griev.

Are we supposed to think that Griev is this Jedi killer? I think the film tried to set him up as one.
But since he kills zero jedi onscreen, this becomes TELLING and not SHOWING.
Why not SHOW Griev fighting and killing some Jedi. Thus we see that he is indeed deadly.
And then if he runs because the tide is turning against him, that works.
But having him only run at every point, that doesn't make him seem like a threat.

Hmm boards are acting weird, must stop here.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Didn't she get killed for the sake of a forced, cringe-worthy "trash compactor" reference/"joke"?

 

The trash compactor won't kill her, but the First Order probably will, once they find out how easily she gave up the shield codes. It was pretty silly... though not as cringey as, say, kid Boba's "evil laugh" in AOTC, or every scene Jar Jar is in, or, "Unlimiteddddd poooowwwwerrrrrrr!"

 

But if she was in the trash compactor when the Death Star blew up, wouldn't she have blown to bits with it? Or does she have teleportation powers?

 

One has to assume that she's a person with resourcefulness and contingencies, since the film never showed it. But assuming she's in command of the troopers for some reason, she likely pulled a Boba Fett style escape prior to the planet getting decimated. There was time between that scene and when the Resistance finally succeeded. But hey, I grant you it's a solid nit to pick.

 

Samuel Vimes
I don't know if you are actively ignoring me, but I gave some justification for Grievous's character in this post:

To answer your last post:

Fair points.
But Palpatine does predict they won't send Anakin, he is counting on it, so not exactly a minor point.
Plus Grievous embodies the "enemy" from Anakin's pov, Anakin refers to him as a "monster". This dehumanisation of the Separatists makes it easier for Anakin to rationalise his turn, and "bring peace" forcefully.

I agree with this, but I have to point out that Anakin goes to Yoda a fair while before Obi-Wan leaves Coruscant. Like Anakin states "We don't need Obi-Wan's help". It is stubborn pride.
Completely with you on Obi-Wan's grounding influence though.

Grievous invaded Coruscant, threatened the life of friend and mentor Palpatine, and in Anakin's eyes is responsible for the continuing war, and the threat on the safety of his wife and the people of the Republic.

I guess, but at least with the PT Lucas took time to flesh out the Sith in general.

Agreed. Trivially my favourite version of the character just as a villain is in ESB. But even that is really part of a greater whole as well.

Interesting points.

There was a lot they could have added to the PT, and Imo things in ROTS were balanced quite meticulously to get the right emphasis in the final film.
Perhaps making Grievous more of a threat would detract from other elements.
But yes, leaving in Shaak Ti's murder, or showing him defeating a Jedi legit may have been fitting.

 

To me the prequels succeeded to give more character to Yoda and Obi Wan.

Compared to modern mentors in films for the last two decades, both of the mentors from the OT are a little one dimensional, relatively speaking.

They serve their purpose in the OT but they're two perfect, without flaw. With the exception that they're victims (since the jedi are destroyed and they're in hiding).

The PT successfully made them more three dimensional with hubris. You can see them in the OT now with sympathy since you saw their failures in the PT.
Obi Wan's pain of failing Anakin as a teacher, and Yoda also with Count Dooku but mostly with his failure to not realize the Jedi was steering in the wrong direction.

In a weird way this applies to Luke now. As at the very end of RotJ, he might be perceived as too perfect. But now you've got everything with his nephew and the death of his new order, you can add new layers to Luke.

 

Sorry about that, I did intend to answer you earlier but then the boards started to act weird and half my post vanished.
I get griev's function in the film, to be a distraction for the Jedi and to separate Anakin and Obi-Wan.
I just find him uninteresting as a character and not a threatening villain.

I think it is minor as the other things are played up more, esp Padme.
Also the turn was changed quite late in the game. At first Anakin turned when Palpatine revealed himself and his turn was more about his bad feelings towards the Jedi, that they didn't trust him and he didn't like them etc.
This was changed to the turn being almost fully about Padme.

As for Griev being the embodiment of the seps in Anakin's eyes, I don't much see that.
Dooku is the one who Anakin would have very strong feelings about and Dooku was the leader of the seps for most of the war.
Anakin and Griev have just one scene and it seems that they have never met before and Anakin doesn't view him with any special hatred.

Ahh my mistake, I thought the Yoda scene was later.

I disagree, as I said above, Anakin would put the blame on Dooku for this, not Griev.
Dooku was the leader of the seps and so the attack on Coruscant would be on his orders.
Dooku is also the one who cut off Anakin's arm and Dooku was involved in a plot to murder Padme.
So Dooku would be hated by Anakin, not Griev. Griev is just an enemy, nothing more. He has way more scores to settle with Dooku.
Same with the war, that is on Dooku in Anakin's eyes, not Griev.

Are they really that much fleshed out?
What happened 1000 years ago that caused the Sith to be thought to be extinct?
Why exactly do they want revenge against the Jedi?
How long have the Sith existed? Why can only the chosen one kill them?
Why did Dooku turn?
Was there ever a Darth Plaug or was that just Palpatine spinning moonbeams for Anakin?

[/QUOTE]

To me, RotS is overstuffed with plot and events to the point that it feels rushed and several things have to happen very quickly in order to set up the OT.
Which is why I feel that Griev is a detriment. He takes up valuable screen time that other parts needed.
Had he been introduced in AotC and his importance established and been shown as a Jedi killer, then RotS wouldn't need as much time with him.

Which is why I say that Lucas didn't make good use of the three films he had.
The first film in part wasted time and didn't establish some important things. Which forced AotC to do some of those things quickly and RotS ended up feeling rushed.
Dooku could have been in TPM and the seeds of the seps established. Griev could have been in AotC and shown to be a legit threat.

If I recall correctly, Lucas said that RotS had 60 % of the story he had in mind before. Possibly he was not being all that accurate but to me, RotS feels rushed in parts. A lot has to happen and some things are dealt with very quickly and Lucas had to cut stuff like the seeds of the rebellion.
And if Griev had not been in the film at all and the Jedi were just focused on ending the war as that would make Palpatine give up his powers, or so they think. They are after some important facility or war plans and when they learn about them, Obi-Wan goes. Anakin thinks he should have gone and we go from there. Obi-Wan does the job and the seps are crippled but Palpatine reveals himself to Anakin etc.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

No, it's a big part because all that lead to his dissatisfaction with the Jedi Order.

I disagree. As I said, Palpatine manipulated Anakin and the Jedi in order to make Anakin resent his order. Yes, the main reason Anakin decided to turn is his wife, but as it was established in ANH, he helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi. It would be stupid for Lucas to make Anakin turn because of Padme and then he starts killing the Jedi without some reason. The frustration because of their distrust to him (Grievous) was one of them.

Really? Anakin didn't tell him that he's married, that he's about to become a father, but he'd talk to him about his fear that someone will die?

One does not exclude the other. Dooku and his death pushed Anakin towards the dark side, Grievous' case alienated him from the Jedi.

I understand; we all wanted some good, well-developed and interesting villains in TFA.
One-dimensional cardboard cuts are what we got.

He isn't? I think he is.

Maul, Dooku, Grievous, Hux, Phasma and Kylo Ren put together.
Anyway, there is no Vader type of villain in the PT. We could discuss Vader vs Kylo Ren, but I doubt that topic would see it's second page.

One of many reasons I prefer the PT are exactly the villains. There are all kinds of them: Nute Gunray, a greedy viceroy of the Trade Federation, Darth Maul, embodiment of evil, a fallen Jedi Dooku, Jango Fett, Grievous and one that is never mentioned here, Palpatine. Mastermind behind it all. Charming, yet evil. Nute Gunray and Palpatine fulfill come criteria, they're in all three movies, aren't they? I don't regret there's a new villain in each movie because that's the nature of evil, you're replaced, you die.

Don't get me wrong, but your quote above is extremely applicable on your quote beneath:

So, about the Sith. There are some quotes in the PT that establish that. At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we will have revenge and Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy.
So it's obvious to conclude that in the fight to rule the galaxy the Jedi wiped out the Sith.
The Chosen one? That could be some religious aspect of the saga, ancient prophecy like in all mythological tales.

I think Lucas used his three movies very good. They were built on each other, you do get the sense that the characters in ROTS are those from TPM, and some things had to happen rushed because that was Palpatine's plan.
Speaking of wasted times in the first movies; TPM established Anakin's story, presented us all the pieces before the story continued 10 years later. We learned about the Sith, about the Jedi, midichlorians, how the Republic works, TF's army which will lead to the separatist army and so on. ANH established the Empire, we learned what was needed for the first movie in the saga, and then there's TFA in which we learned... Well, nothing.

 

Nope, his dissatisfaction started with the Jedi putting him on the council but didn't make him a Master, he was quite upset about that. It escalated when the Jedi asked him to spy on Palpatine, this made him question the jedi a lot. That they were doing illegal things, that they were acting against the lawful leader of the senate, that they were traitors.

Not sending him after Griev was very minor.

And if you think about it, it would not make much sense to send Anakin. Anakin was appointed to be Palpatine's personal representative on the council. To be his emissary essentially.
If so, Anakin would remain with the council as much as possible and not be sent away on missions.

Well in my opinion, the reason why Anakin starts to kill Jedi is pretty stupid.
Doubly so after Palpatine more or less admits that he didn't have the thing he was offering Anakin earlier and only made some very vague promises to Anakin.

Anakin's doubt with the JC works until the point he finds out that Palpatine is the Sith Lord behind everything. Then he knows that the Jedi were totally right in doubting him. They were totally right in suspecting him. And Anakin got pretty mad and was thinking of killing Palpatine.
But he goes and tells Mace and offers his help in arresting Palpatine. So here he knows that Palpatine is the bad guy and should be put in jail.
So most of his misgivings with the Jedi would go away once he sees that they were right, Palpatine was not to be trusted.

The ONLY reason he goes to Palpatine's office is Padme and the ONLY reason he stops Mace from killing Palpatine is likewise Padme. So the turn is 100% about Padme.
Remove her and Anakin would not turn.

So I can buy that he stops Mace in order to save Padme. I can even buy that he obeys Palpatine after this and figures that the Jedi will come after him and Palpatine after what he did so they are now his enemies.
What I didn't buy and felt totally off was Anakin's line about "I agree, the jedi's next movie will be against the senate."
Anakin knows there is no Jedi plot. The Jedi worried about Palpatine and he knows that their fears were justified. So his lines here makes no sense to me.
If he went along with it just to protect himself and Padme and because Palpatine told him, that might have worked.

So no, Griev did not figure into this in any way, at least not to me.

I think Obi-Wan was the Jedi Anakin was closest to and the Jedi he liked the best.
Had he been there when Palpatine revealed himself, I think Anakin might have talked to him.

Again I don't agree, Dooku pushed him towards the dark side a lot. The Griev thing was minor and many others things fed into his distrust and dissatisfaction with the Jedi.

I don't agree, I found some of them way more interesting that most of the villains in the PT.
Not all, Phasma was a waste and Hux was lacking.

Again I don't agree and Lucas has said that the OT is Luke's story.
In ANH, Vader is a secondary villain with maybe 15 minutes of screen time.
In ESB he rises to primary antagonist but Luke is the main character and Vader's actions are mostly focused on Luke.
In RotJ, the Emperor becomes the primary villain and Vader becomes a redeemable villain.
But the focus isn't on his redemption, the focus is on Luke's journey to become a Jedi and his struggle to save his father. Vader is important yes but it isn't his story nor is he the main character.

If you mean a developed villain with a backstory and strong character and a bit of an arc, then you are right. We don't have those types of villains in the PT.

And my opinion is about the total reverse of this.
I found most of the PT villains boring and uninteresting and at times unthreatening as well.
They were often shallow, flat, underdeveloped and disposable.
And I almost always prefer well developed villains over disposable nonentities that show up, fight and then die.

Ex. the movie Ghost Rider, yes not all that good.
The main bad guy has three goons. They totally lack character and just exist to fight Ghost Rider three times and Ghost Rider beats them all with ease. So as villains go, they were quite poor.

And I didn't find much variety in the PT villains.
Really there are two types, Sidious and everyone else, who are basically drones that do whatever Sidious tells them to while not having much of a personality or independent motivation.
Maul and Griev are both style over substance, Nute and all the seps are greedy, evil merchants.
Dooku had potential but that was sadly wasted.

Why obvious, we know that the Sith likes to stab each other in the back and it is possible that the sith got almost wiped out due to that.
As far as I know the rule of two came about for this reason, that the Sith nearly wiped themselves out with their infighting.
Also, if the Jedi killed the Sith, or thought they did, was there a chosen one around at the time?
If not, why would they assume that a chosen one was needed now?
Also all Jedi can see into the future but this future is uncertain, always in motion. So why is this prophecy different?
And just my opinion, throwing in a prophecy in this way is just an cheap way to make the story seem more epic. Had they done anything interesting with it, like in the Matrix films or the HP books, then it might have been worthwhile. As is, I think the films could have been better off without it.

[/QUOTE]

I think we will just agree to disagree.
TPM didn't establish or develop the friendship between Anakin and Obi-Wan, arguably one of the key relationships in the PT. AotC paid some lip service to this but mostly I didn't get the sense that they were friends or that they even liked each other.

The "romance" between Anakin and Padme was sort of started but Anakin was too young for a "romance" as such. What I got in AotC was a bit creepy, Anakin had spent ten years thinking about Padme. This was less love and more of an obsession to me.
So AotC had to rush it and it didn't work for me, at all.
Obi-Wan as a character was given little to do. Anakin was recast in the next film and acted very different. So much so that he seemed a different person to me.

The seps threat could have been established in TPM and could Dooku, both would have helped AotC. Griev could have been in AotC, which would have helped RotS.

And we know that Lucas had to cut stuff in RotS due to an overstuffed film.
The seeds of the rebellion is one example but he also planned to do more about Sifo-Dyas and the clone army but that was scrapped too.
Both in AotC and in RotS, important plot lines were changed quite late in the game. At first there was Sido-Dyas, a fake Jedi. In RotS, Anakin's turn was quite different.

In closing, I think we learn plenty in TFA.
The empire did fall but a smaller but more fanatical organisation has risen from it's ashes.
The new Republic is unwilling to fight it directly and instead fights a war by proxy against it.
The FO's normal military isn't strong enough to defeat the republic fleet but their new weapon turn the tables.
Don't get me wrong, the film has flaws a plenty and could have used a lot more backstory and they didn't need to fear exposition as much as they did.

As far as characters, we got a good picture of Rey. She was abandoned at an early age and suffers from this. She has spent most her life waiting for someone that will never come. This has kept her sort of locked up and unwilling to move on.
Finn, in his first battle, he panics and is almost frozen. He almost sick and is aware that his superiors will find out and either kill him or do something unpleasant to him. So he wants to run, as far away as possible. So fear gives him a sort of courage, he does things he would not normally do just to get away. He is at first quite selfish and wants to save himself, but later he cares enough for Rey to go back and save her, even at the risk of his own life.

Kylo, well I have already spoke about him.

Overall, TFA is flawed but still quite fun and I enjoyed it more than the PT films.
They are not bad films, ok to pretty good but their flaws bothered me more.
Mostly because I didn't really get involved with the characters, which I did in TFA.
And if I care and is invested in the characters, other flaws bothers me less than if I am not.

Bye.
Old Stoneface

 

Agreed. I see the OT as Luke's story. Not Anakin's.
I can't just retro-actively fit the tragedy of Darth Vader into the framework of the OT. Just not possible imo.
Luke takes on more prominence in the OT than Vader does.