PT Yoda's portrayal in the PT a most silly criticism

Some in the press have heavily bashed the way Yoda is portrayed in the Prequels, claiming his awesome jumping and lightsaber skills detracts from him being a teacher and guide in the OT.

Out of all the criticisms the PT has received this seems incredibly stupid to me. Why can't he be an excellent and powerful fighter/force user and still be a teacher.

In the PT as well he is seen counseling Anakin(albeit with negative results), instructing younglings, and managing the affairs of the council.

What is the PT board's opinion of this particular criticism?

 

I have seen many complain that he should be like the Jedi answer to Emperor, so wise and powerful he doesnt need to fight the way most others do.
"A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack" shouldn't be misinterpreted as never being offensive.There will come a time when an enemy cannot simply be thrown to the side or be knocked down by objects. A lightsaber is the weapon of a Jedi. Every one of them should have it for any circumstance that would better their chances of protection and survival.
As master Yoda says "Size matters not....For my ally is the Force and a powerful ally it is". He compensates for his size with his connection of the Force, which actually gives him an advantage. His incredible jumping ability is through an exhausting channeling of the Force, that despite his age, can propel him and make him move so fast. It actually compliments his appearance in OT very well, because it explains why he is so calm. His humility comes from him knowing how skilled he is and what his powers can do, which gives him a reason to not to use the Force in such a way, unless it's proven absolutely necessary.

I think, if we ask people more times, they would just admit they just didn't like the choreography of his fighting animation and think it looked silly and not believable.

 

Some discussion on this here.

I do see a contrast, but it can benefit the character if you look at it as a progression.

 

I can't speak for the whole forum, but to me, it's a stupid criticism based on baseless and subjective preconceived notions about the character. Both premises are not mutually exclusive as the movies show. Specially AOTC. So yeah, not a valid criticism.

 

In this interview, Dave Filoni does a good job of explaining why Yoda is the way he is in the prequels as compared to the originals:

As you can see, these are the things Filoni was made to understand about Yoda's character arc after extensive conversations with George Lucas in relation to Yoda's final story in The Clone Wars, so it's about as definitive as you can get.

 

I do not really understand from where the criticism come.
Master Yoda is changing his understanding of things, at the end of ROTS , when he refuses to use the dark side of the Force to finish Darth Sidious.
That Master Yoda was involved the war fighting on the side of Galactic Republic for Galactic Senate?
This is what Master Yoda and the Jedi Council thought is the proper way of action for that time.

 

i really think most of this depends on if one saw the prequels first or the OT first. i suspect most criticisms come from those who saw the OT first and i had the same criticism after AotC first came out. it's just mainly about what perspectives/sense/intuitions one gathered about the characters and their abilities from watching the OT. yoda to me seemed like a pacifist and a mystic in the OT, not a warrior. i didn't really expect the force to save you from breaking all your bones when you are old and brittle, or arthritic or whatever, either... but of course it can (i mean some of the leaps luke makes in ESB are pretty unbelievable without the Force; even though action heroes often pull off similar in other films lol).

 

That's a very narrow and close-minded view of the movies on Filoni's part. Yoda in the PT is exactly the same as he was in the OT. He's just (sometimes) faced and placed under different circunstances. Yoda is "odd and quizzical" when appropriate/needed. One just needs to look at the younglings scene in AOTC. It's a fallacy to pretend those are mutually exclusive. Specially with the evidence provided in the PT.

His values and beliefs are also the same.

"Wars not make one great."

Yes, wars don't make one great. One doesn't need to fight in a war to make that realization. One just needs to observe. And Yoda didn't fight in the war in order to be great. He fought out of necessity. He's saddened that there is a war in the first place. Everything is there in AOTC. Consistency.

"A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense. Never attack."

When exactly did the Jedi use the Force for attack? That's what the Sith do. They twist the Force to conjure a power to hurt others (lightning, choking, for example). The Jedi don't do that. Ever. That's also made explicit in the movies. But perhaps Filoni saw a different version of the prequels than I did.

Not to mention the erroneous idea that the Jedi in the PT are not selfless. It's part of who they are. It's all there in the dialogue and their teachings.

A pity that he can't reply back...

 

I believe a lot of people interpret the original trilogy as films teaching how Yoda was a pacifist that was so strong in the force that he didn't need to fight with a lightsaber. He was a philosopher there, not a warrior. Personally I believe its naive to think that Yoda would never have had to fight in the past with a saber, and I was totally fine with his portrayal in the PT. Moreover, the Yoda that you see in the OT is a more evolved Yoda that has learned from the past. The PT showed the Jedi in their Heyday where they most definitely would flaunting their weapons more often in wartime.

Some people also prefer the puppet Yoda over the cgi, but I thought that cgi Yoda was done wonderfully. They perfected him in Revenge of the Sith.

 

Well, it's the view he got after extensive conversations with George Lucas. The very same George Lucas who specifically said the Jedi were corrupted by war. It's almost as if....this is what the movies are about.

Nah.

 

To put it simply and cleary these press people are

 

And until we know the content of said conversations and what was actually said by Lucas vs what's Filoni's interpretation, I stand by what I said.

?!

 

That it is a total bul...it, I presume.

 

I was kind of baffled by that, when I heard it the first time. That and Qui-Gon existing being inconsistent with OT.
I mean Yoda was 900 years old it is not that hard to imagine that he did use a lightsaber once in a while.

 

It's more an issue that Yoda was introduced as an unassuming old man who didn't carry weapons and was all about wisdom and inner power in ESB (Luke is expecting a great warrior but what he meets is the opposite of that in every sense, so I'd be careful about taking the 'wars not make one great' line out of context of that) but then in AOTC the walking stick gets dropped and he's moving around like this hyperactive speed-demon gremlin wielding a tiny lightsabre. The result is a devaluation of the character, removing what made him special in the first place, and since it comes after a test of Force telekinesis (which is far more powerful than twirling laser swords around), it's seen for what it is, a fan-service moment. I've noticed that some have reacted to what Vader does in RO in a similar way.

There's also a very nice symetry in ROTJ in that mastery of both the Light and Dark leads to abilities that far exceed mere sword-fighting. Neither Yoda nor the Emperor needed to resort to to such basic demonstrations of their power given what they have access to. So in that sense ROTS was even more disappointing.

This was the context of the criticism when AOTC came out and also around the time of ROTS. Since then, there has been some ad hoc rationalisation of the differences between PT Yoda and OT Yoda, from both fans here (see above posts) and the Clone Wars TV series, but I'd be wary of ignoring the historical context for the complaint and also of using a strawman.

 

yoda sets the precedent and so if he can do that in aotc then vader must be able to do the same. in yoda's case where one is ancient and can't walk without the aid of a cane generally, i thought that it's that one can use the force to protect their bones/joints/tendons etc. from snapping/breaking when the body is being twisted around too much or when one is making leaps that would break the bones of the average person when they land. it's just that one can't sustain this forever (it likely takes a lot of energy to keep going). if one could sustain it forever, then i don't see why they couldn't just use the force to stop everything inside of them from breaking/dying and thus never die. yoda might be much older than average for his species as well though (i have no idea).

i guess although i too felt it looked like fan service and it irked me to no end when i first saw aotc i couldn't keep my objection as time went on. i still probably wish there was more diversity seemingly within the jedi. i would have expected there to be a variety of ways in which one is naturally inclined to use the force and a range of varying talents (as in some might be strong psychics with the force but not great mechanics; or some might be naturals at defense combat while others are strong visionaries; though ofc there will also be those who are great with multiple areas and everyone will probably need some basic defense training). but i also hadn't seen the jedi as so institutionalized from my OT perceptions; and i think that they were that way is central ofc to what the story actually is. if they all basically get uniform training, then uniform results are to be expected and the differences in natural talent/ability/inclination will be reduced to mere nuances from an audience perspective.

and i mean, in general, there are always benefits to a well-rounded approach.

 

Why can't the old sage be more than he appears. Also in AOTC he is seen instructing younglings and being rather nice.

 

Not so as Dooku notes. They have to go to their Lightsabers. The idea that it's a fan service moment is very odd to me. For one no one was thinking that you could ever do anything like that with a puppet anyway. It's only with CGI that you could even entertain it and as Lucas notes he didn't know if they were really going to be able to pull it off. It wasn't about fan service but Lucas doing what he always did. Take incredible chances that others would shy away from.

What it actually has done is elevate the character and makes his appearance in TESB all the stronger because now those who have discovered him after the PT and TCW know that for all his power and skills as a warrior that is simply not enough. He couldn't defeat Sidious like that.

The similarity is that the actual general audience (who are not fans) think it's terrific. There will always be a portion of fans who don't like something or other. That is just the way it is. As long as the prequels were the only SW movies outside the OT then there are those who were very happy because they actually seemed to believe that if any more movies were ever made (and not by Lucas) then they would be happy with those as well.

They have found out that is not the case and there are those who are disappointed with either or both of TFA and R1.

Those who for years just pointed to RLM videos for the PT can now also point to videos on the new movies if they chose.

The nice symmetry also holds in ROTS as both show they can also use Lightsabers (as if that was ever in question). I don't know what is supposed to be "mere" about "sword-fighting" because it's simply not just that at all. It's being one with the Force and using it as well as letting it guide your actions.

The historical context is the strawman argument though. It's saying that this is the way that Yoda is and therefore always was and anything that goes against that is incorrect.

It doesn't work because that is not how the SW story demonstrably works. Layers of story and character on all levels are revealed going both forward and backwards.

Seeing that Yoda does in Episode V can't tell you that he wasn't doing something different in earlier episodes.

 

Oh, don't get me wrong, the old sage can be more than he appears and that can be an interesting twist when done right. Truthfully, this is very much a discussion that stems from whether you saw ESB first or AOTC first. For me, Yoda was always the master who didn't need a lightsabre as he was just that advanced.

And so it's less to do with him being energized by the Force and moving around so quickly but the basic notion that if he has the power to effortlessly knock out guards by pushing them against a wall (a fantastic moment), or move objects regardless of their weight, with just your mind, why devolve to a lower form of battle? It's a flawed concept that came up in the Matrix sequels as well, where Neo fights with Kung Fu a lot instead of his god-like powers. I understand, it's a crowd-pleasing moment in the same broad sense as a lot of the duels (which all suffer from the 'why doesn't he just choke/push/paralyse him and win that way'). Storytelling fun beats raw logic.

It's clearly fan service. The unexpectedness of the event and the risk associated with pulling it off convincingly are irrelevant to the fact that some fans had wanted to see Yoda fight for decades. There was even a legends novel that hinted at a great battle fought between Yoda and a dark jedi on Dagobah. Initial reactions to that scene, ie, fans going wild, only prove that Lucas used it for exactly such an effect. Don't discredit the man for knowing which buttons to push to entertain.

That the duel does not resolve and has no impact on the story at all makes it even more of a fan service moment. Further, they don't have to go to their lightsabres at all. It's an absurd line of dialogue thrown in to justify the physical part of their fight (which is ultimately as pointless as the mental). These two have godlike powers, why are they smashing their laser swords against each other like any other two guys?

The parallel to Vader is rather obvious, it's taking an existing character and showing them in a new manner that pleases fans of that character have been wanting to see. I made a note of it especially because I've seen several comments in the RO forum that run along lines of "I don't like it because that's not who Vader is". Which I think you'll agree are eerily similar to the objections to Yoda in AOTC.

 

Who else taught Luke to fight with a lightsaber if not Yoda? The only reason the scenes with Luke being taught by him were cut is because the puppet was incapable of such action.

 

There were a fair number of cut scenes from ESB where Yoda was on Luke's back, training with different crystals and lightsaber combat. The idea being, I think, it's more a matter of trusting Force intuition to guide the saber rather than actual saber practice.

The scenes were cut due to pacing with the rest of the film, I believe.

 

Apparently, those two guards Yoda knocked unconscious are on the same level as two Dark Lords of the Sith. Yeah, that's some sound logic right there.

 

I saw TESB first in 1980 and wondered why Yoda stole Grover's voice. I also thought he was a great muppet like Kermit.

I don't know where this idea sprung from that Yoda didn't need a Lightsaber. It seems to me that it only actually started when he got one. Before that people weren't imagining it could happen because the puppet couldn't do much of anything but talk.

I don't see why it would be considered a lower form at all in the first place. Why isn't it simply all seen as part of the same thing?

It's not like Yoda and Sidious are not channeling the Force. If anything dueling is the "higher" form since it requires multi-tasking of mental, spiritual and physical disciplines.

I think the actual flaw is this idea of "raw logic".

The logic of the SW universe doesn't come from you or me or anyone but George Lucas. As can be observed he actually does think through these things and comes up with his own internal explanations never mind that we don't get most of them because that is not what the movies are about. This goes across all lines of story, character, emotion, logic et all.

There is little point of going into every nook and cranny of why this happens this way and so on. What he does show us is that through what we can observe is that Anakin and Obi-Wan can't simply choke/push/paralyse each other in any way. Yoda can waive off Dooku's lighting like water but Sidious' hurts him. Vader and Obi-Wan lock Force strength on Mustafar but that doesn't go anywhere.

We might as well ask why Jedi don't fly. How come Yoda falls at all in ROTS? Can't he just levitate himself? The answer is given that no he can't as we observe. If Yoda didn't have to use his Lightsaber then he wouldn't but he does. That is the raw logic of storytelling provided to us.

It's not our story and so we go back to the same problem as some people want SW to conform to the story they created as opposed to the one Lucas did.

Lucas wins the battle of logics.

Exactly. The practice is the Force not the sword itself. When Mace fights Sidious he has never faced a Sith Lord in his life. This is the first duel he's ever had. The others who were cut down in seconds had decades of sword practice so that is not why they got cut down.

Mostly I think it was that they couldn't get it to work. It tooks weeks and weeks to get some of the most basic scenes done. There is a reason why doing anything akin to the PT was impossible in the OT when it came to duels. It's not like Lucas couldn't imagine things like the PT duels or Vader in R1 at the time.

That wasn't the problem. It was simply impossible to do in the time required to make it. It's no different from something like Coruscant. Lucas could think if it and did but actually doing it in a movie was not possible.

 

This strikes me as pure obstinacy just for the sake of it. Filoni absolutely knows better what Lucas actually said in their conversations than you do. Especially since what he says fits perfectly with everything we're shown in the six movies, with George Lucas's own public statements on the matter, and with common sense.

Dude, I know for a fact that you and I specifically have had this exact conversation before. I posted the video where Lucas says this in plain English, and you responded by coming up with all kinds of tortured arguments about how he probably didn't really mean what he explicitly said. So, here we go again, I guess....

At 5m51s:



"And the Jedi are always sort of fighting this reality of the fact that they're in essence diplomats. They sort of persuade people to do the right thing. But their job really isn’t to go around fighting people, yet they’re now used as generals, and they’re fighting in a war, and they’re doing something they really weren’t meant to do. They’re being corrupted by this war, by being forced to be generals instead of peacemakers." -- George Lucas, from the video.