PT Yoda mishandled entirely in the prequels?

I didn't like the Vader father switch at the time of release - seeing it at the time.

But hey, I rolled with it and Lucas and had fun having worked out the way it was going to be - i.e DO NOT SECOND GUESS THESE FILMS.

Those that decided to get off at any point should just let go of the rails properly and walk away, otherwise you are having your head spun round for no reason.

 

I'll put in my two cents' worth:
I do believe that he was mishandled in the prequels by making him a reflection of the state of the rest of the Jedi rather than constant.
For example, I'd reckon that Yoda's being 900 years old (in E.S.B.) was a way of saying that he has seen all that he could see, and has learnt all that needed to be learned. He is still effectively the same age in the prequels, and the idea that the 800 or 900-year old man then needed to learn from the events of the prequels' events does not recognise why he was characterised as so old in the first place.
For example, in E.S.B., he tells us that, 'Wars not make one great,' and demonstrates the idea that using the force and being a Jedi is more about the personal than swinging a lightsaber. On the other hand, in A.O.T.C., by fighting Dooku (after their Force-fight), he demonstrates that lightsaber fighting is a 'greater act' than anything to do with the Force. The idea that he learnt the wisdom he shows in E.S.B. in the last 30 years of his life contradicts the reason for his being so old in the first place. In the P.T., he comes across to me as being thick, stuck-up and dogmatic.
I personally believe that a better approach would have been to have him just the same as in the O.T., and have the rest of the Jedi Council being power-obsessed and believing more in the physical side of the Force than the spiritual. Mace Windu typifies this for me, as he seems more concerned with maintaining the power of the Jedi Order than anything else. By having these two views on what is means to be a Jedi conflict, it would be a good way to highlight the corruption of the Jedi Council and Republican institutions. Dooku's challenge to fight could be met with a rebuke; Yoda should say that that sort of thinking is why Dooku ultimately failed as a Jedi. And ultimately, those who took the corrupted political view on being a Jedi are destroyed, but the few who took the greater, more wholesome view of the personal commitment of being a Jedi survive. From this, a good character arc for Obi-wan would be to have him go from using the force for petty, personal, or political reasons to taking a greater, more enlightened view. Anakin, meanwhile, would become so power-obsessed that he feels the Jedi Order are restraining him, and allies with the man (Palpatine) who promises Anakin greater power than he could achieve as a Jedi.

 

But he hasn’t “seen all that he could see”, because this is the first time in his lifetime he’s seen a direct threat from the Sith and a full-scale war like the Clone Wars. The Sith had been in hiding for a thousand years, and there hadn’t been a full-scale major conflict in the Republic during that time.

Sorry but I don’t agree with the idea that once you reach X age you’ve seen everything you possibly could and there’s nothing you could learn or no way you could change. What would that age even be? If 900 years is old enough to know everything there is to know, what about 800? 500? Where do you draw the line?

 

I may have lost myself a little in rambling, but I did not mean to imply that there is an age at which one acquires 'perfect' wisdom; rather, Yoda's great age is meant to symbolise this. The characterisation of Yoda in the P.T. films, and the hand-waving used to describe the discrepancy between them and the O.T., ignores what his character was meant to represent.

 

What's the difference between being perfect and symbolising perfect in this context? Any failing on Yoda's behalf would oppose both motifs regardless (it doesn't make sense to symbolise perfection by showing someone be not perfect or at least be held in very high esteem). Are you simply against the idea of Yoda making mistakes at all?

Personally I see the opposite theme for Yoda as just as legitmate and sensible: that old age does not equal infallibility - that no matter how many years lived there will always be some gap in experience or some habit of personality that pertudes over the "correct" choice. I can just imagine a scene in ROTJ where Yoda and Luke are describing the Clone Wars and Luke is shocked at how the Jedi and Yoda could be outmanoeuvred so throughly by the Sith, and Yoda is all: "judge me by my age, do you? hmm? makes one wise, old age does not." *drops head in regret*

 

I don’t think Lucas meant for the character to represent that at all. It’s definitely not what he represents to me, at least. What he represents to me is the idea that people never have to stop learning, they never have to stop growing. You can always choose to change your beliefs if you see you’ve been wrong before. You can learn from your experiences and your mistakes. It’s never too late. This is of course something we see most clearly in Vader’s arc, but I think it applies to several other characters as well. In fact, I’d say this theme - hope and the possibility of change or even redemption - is pretty central to the entire SW saga. For me, in light of this central theme, it would be very odd to have a stagnant character who’s supposed to symbolise perfect wisdom, someone who doesn’t need to learn anything anymore because he already knows everything he needs to know.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying you can’t interpret Yoda’s character in whatever way you wish. I don’t think there ever is only one possible interpretation of a character. But what I object to (and this more of a general pet peeve of mine and not something directed at you specifically) is when people say that Lucas mishandled his characters, that he did something wrong or bad when he did something different with a character than what you personally had in mind. Lucas is not ignoring what his character was meant to represent, you just happened to have a different idea of what he was supposed to represent.

 

Yep. It's perfectly fine to have different interpretations of characters or to express what you wanted from them, but using language like "thats his true character" or "that's how he was meant to be" crosses the line from arguments of interpretion to arguments of fact, and - outside of blatent factual contradictions - it's difficult to do that since the characters are so open to interpretation.

 

Interesting approach, still, I don't think Yoda appreciates positively the Clone Wars. He was the first and maybe at that time the only Jedi who understood the true meaning of the Clone wars still in AOTC. (Victory, you said. No, it is no victory...) So for me he is wise in PT also, but even the wisest persons make mistakes even they could learn something even in that age. As I said, in PT he didn't do the things wrong (or apparently wasn't that) but in the end they result in something wrong. So, he needed to think why and he needed to change something. This not make him not wise in PT, this make him even wiser, because only a wise person could think first about his/her own mistakes and then about the bad circumstances. Yes, he did one thing wrong and it was real failure: the choice of hiding the existence of the Clone army. Then all fell into Palpatine's trap. It looks like insignificant choice, but it was like the steps of doom.

About the lightsaber fight, I'm just curious, why do you think it was better than anything that he did in AOTC? Yes, it was visually impressive, but the amazing thing he do is come to rescue the Jedi: apparently he sensed that they are in danger. This is much more amazing than the fight. Also he did this against his principles: he has to choose between the suspicious clone army and the death of the Jedi. In the fight with Dooku, the same, he must choose between saing the life of Obi Wan and Anakin and catching/defeating Dooku.

 

I really dislike that line. Obi-Wan is just talking about the victory in the sense of that day and how all those jedi didn't die. That is a victory in and of itself. But then Yoda takes the comment all out of context to try and sound deep. I just wanted obi wan to interrupt him mid sentence and be like "nah that's not what I meant"

Maybe that's not how obiwan meant it but it seems presumptuous for Yoda to assume otherwise and respond in the pedantic way he did

 

Yoda wasn't in the mood to find a silver-lining. He knows that this War spells doom for the Jedi and the Republic. That is why he chastises Obi-Wan. Using the Clones was actually a failure on principle alone.

 

Well, Yoda was right, don't you agree? Here we have , how to say it, an allusion of what Obi Wan himself said to Qui Gon, that Yoda is always mindful of the future. Yes, it seems like victory, but it is failure. An Yoda didn’t say it to humiliate Obi Wan, Yoda said that full of bitterness, because Yoda also participated in that absolutely pyrrhic victory.

 

He said it in a way that is trying to rebut obiwan, but hes rebutting something that obiwan didn't really say. I took obiwan to basically mean " if it were not for the Clones it would not been a victory today (ie. we would have all died without them)". Yoda just taking the use of the word "victory" out of context and then lecturing obiwan about something which is not in the spirit of what Obi was actual saying.

 

Yoda's point is that they didn't do anything other than fail to prevent the war from beginning. They went in with two hundred and twelve Jedi and lost half of their forces. Then they failed to prevent Dooku, Grievous and the other Separatist leaders from escaping. Now they've gone out to recruit more systems to their cause. Ten thousand systems, according to Obi-wan who recounted what Dooku said. There was no victory there that day. It doesn't matter that they survived, they still failed in their duty to prevent the war from spreading. Yoda understands the far greater magnitude of what happened, over Obi-wan who has only fought in a few small battles in his life.

 

Just because obi is glad that everyone wasnt massacred that day doesn't mean he doesn't also know the point Yoda is making. Like I say Yoda is just being pedant picking on one word and screwing the meaning into something else

Really? It doesn't matter at all that the jedi at geonosis survived instead of dying? If that's your position then yeah obiwan is wrong in his statement because there is no victory from that point of view

 

Obi-wan only realizes it after Yoda has pointed it out, that they didn't really accomplish anything.

A Pyrrhic victory is all that they won. It is hollow at best. That is the difference between this victory and what was won at Endor.

 

It is perhaps a bit absolutist in regards interpreting his character, although I was, as I said, trying to argue the symbolism of aspects of his characterisation, and how they seem to have been lost. However, it is just as absolutist to argue that, "It's Lucas' character; he can do what he wants; he knows what he's doing." It may be the case, for example, that over a gap of twenty-five or thirty years that he lost sight of certain aspects of a character and why he included them, or something like that.
Furthermore, the 'Lucas defence' to me typifies a problem with his approach to the films evident since the special editions, in that he does not respect that the audience may draw different things from a film to what he intended. For example, the "Han--Greedo fight": many people regard the original version as defining Han's character; however, from the alterations, and Lucas' attempts to justify them ("it was meant all along, or whatever"), it is clear that Lucas did not, or now does not, intend that to be the case. But in defending his changes, he ignores and seems unwilling even to consider any of the reasons why the original version could be considered superior; he does not recognise that people considered it a character-defining moment. By defending things by referring to Lucas, people find themselves falling into this same trap; and they begin judging things by what the director intended rather than what we actually saw. If we're supposed to exactly follow directors' intentions, then films would be screened with audio-commentary in the cinema.
I also don't see anything wrong with keeping his character constant; for a comparatively minor character, it doesn't necessarily matter. Yoda could have served as a reference-point against which all of the other characters could be compared in their approach to the Force and being a Jedi.

 

Like I said in the post you quoted, I don’t believe there is only one possible way to interpret a character. So no, I certainly don’t believe that you need to interpret a character in the way the author intended. Or how you believe s/he intended, because there’s really no way for us to know what went on in the author’s mind when s/he wrote something. I’ve certainly read many books or seen films where I interpret something completely differently than what I believe the author intended, but my interpretation works just fine. It’s supported by the text and it’s more interesting for me, so it’s a perfectly valid interpretation. Once a text leaves the author’s mind/desk drawer/laptop/whatever and is read by others, it is open for interpretation, and that includes interpretations the author might never have intended.

To be honest, it feels a bit weird to get this kind of “the author’s intentions don’t matter, what matters is what’s on the screen” argument directed at me, because that’s actually what I absolutely believe. The author is dead, and all that. But I guess I do sometimes bring up the author and his intentions in this particular fandom because of a phenomenon I see here quite often. And that phenomenon is when fans insist that they are the ones who truly know what a character is really supposed to be all about, and Lucas got it wrong. Not just different from what the fans thought, but wrong. I've seen it happen pretty often and it doesn't quite make sense to me. I mean, we all have our own interpretations, so why would someone think they’re the one who truly understands the character, the one who has the right answer to what the character was truly meant to be like? Different personal interpretations are cool, but I think it’s easier to have a discussion about them if we keep in mind they’re just that - personal interpretations, not objective truths about what the characters were really meant to be like.

So when I said that I don’t believe Lucas ever intended for the character to represent what he represents to you, I don’t mean that people can’t interpret him in that way. But what I’m trying to get at is that I don’t like it when people use language like “Lucas mishandled the character in the PT” or “Lucas forgot what the character was supposed to be like when he made the PT” when it turns out his interpretation of a character and their role in the story was different than what you thought. It’s not some flaw in the PT if his vision for a character’s arc was different than yours.

 

jaex

Yes, but as I said before, Lucas seems to be almost completely unwilling to allow for this process (of other people's interpretations) in making and justifying his choices; and furthermore, he seems to rationalise plenty of things by saying that other interpretations are invalid, or by substituting later ideas for earlier ones in his recollection of his creative processes (and this does occur, in my view, with total sincerity). I should say, did Lucas know what other people took away from the O.T. about Yoda? If not, then it would be easy to write a character that clashes with many people's expectations of his character. He may, again, have not considered aspects of Yoda's characterisation that he had considered when first writing him, and I'd say that forgetting the reasons behind building a character does count as mishandling them. If he was aware of these things, did he consider pre-existing interpretations, and did he consider the the effects of these clashing? Did he think that every single character needed to find the events of the PT enlightening or changing, or could there have been an island of stability who gets proved right and lives whilst others think differently and die if they don't learn? And furthermore, many of the justifications for aspects of his PT characterisation come off as hand-waving to explain these discrepancies and 'misunderstandings', and they too often ignore these reasons.
And I should say that it is entirely legitimate for one to say that (as the title post, which I was responding to, does) that Lucas did mishandle the prequels' characterisation, but then, I'm less likely to lapse into convenient relativism. How would you have responded to the post? Probably, by taking a similar absolute position and trying to demonstrate why your opinion is right. The convenience with responding only to my posts rather than the original question is that it is easier to skirt around arguments and nit-pick.

 

Absolutely this. We know that Lucas originally had in mind that Yoda would be useless in a fight, that Lucas had in mind that he was not some lightsabre weilding warrior...yet, there he is bouncing around his enemies at the end of a blurring whir of miniature lightsabre. Why mention that he is 900 years old except to posit the idea that his great age has to do with his great wisdom?

To argue that the author is dead, and then argue because Lucas simply reveals a paucity of response to the points being made.

Here's the thing. It appears as if Lucas, when writing the prequels, decided to subvert every expectation from the OT. Given that notion....what value does that leave for the OT? Can you really overturn everything that fans read into and brought into and not be accused of mishandling the characters/storyline etc. ?

Let me emphasise again. Aspects of PT Yoda subvert Lucas' own, known, intentions for the character....so the argument 'because Lucas....you don't know what he intended' is untennable. It's actually that argument that I have little time for more generally....that 'Lucas had (or may have had) it planned this way 'all along'....

 

DarthCricketer

I have already responded to the OP’s question earlier in the thread. I responded to your post because you brought up a point that I thought was interesting, even though I disagreed with it. That’s how discussion forums work, in my experience - people don’t only respond to the particular question the OP posed, but also to other people’s posts. But it wasn’t my intention to get into any endless back-and-forth arguments, or frustrate you with my posts. For what it’s worth, I think we actually agree on many things, we’re just coming into this discussion from different places. I get the feeling it’s best if I just… step away from this particular conversation at this point.

Peace

 

That's correctly put, "Peace, mahn"

 

Let's say it that way. If Obi Wan said something like: 'If the clone soldiers didn't come (actually is Yoda who came in help with the clone troops, but anyway) the battle will be a total disaster', then the answer of Yoda could be: 'Yes, master Obi Wan, right you are, still the shred of the Dark Side has fallen'.
But Obi Wan said "victory" and this is something that couldn't be achieved here.

 

Another aspect that could qualify as "mishandled" is this:

In the company of the Younglings (where it doesn't really matter at this time) Yoda clearly advocates open-mindedness and curiosity, yet in the company of the Jedi masters and knights (where it could really matter) he doesn't even make a try.

(of course, one could argue that it's "do...or do not" and Yoda realizes it's not worth to even try, but still)

 

What he originally intended doesn't matter. The originals don't negate Yoda's character in the prequels and vice-versa. Great wisdom doesn't mean he won't or can't fight.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

 

Some of the other jedi masters might not appreciate being lectured to if they consider themselves of equal rank (even though he's probably the oldest and wisest among them). Who knows what the politics of the jedi council are really like behind closed doors. He does criticize some of the older jedi for being arrogant and too sure of themselves in an earlier scene in AOTC. And he corrects Obi Wan at the end as was discussed above. I think Yoda has more of a sense than the other jedi that things don't add up and that the jedi are not in as much control of events as they believe they are. But here I think his age actually leads him to be overconfident, because he seems to think that even so, knowing there is a Sith master manipulating events and that the jedi don't fully understand what's going on, that as long as the jedi stay vigilant eventually everything will work out and return itself to the status quo. After all, 800 years of experience have taught him this. So I think he himself was behaving in a slightly complacent and arrogant way.