PT "Your arrogance blinds you, Master Yoda." Is this line more significant than it appears?

Occupying disloyal systems is exactly what the Empire did. That's what makes an Empire an Empire. It's the basic unit by which Empires rule. Forcible control over dissent. I invite you to watch the Yoda arc of Clone Wars carefully, which Dave Filoni said is the last will and testament to Yoda by George Lucas. It is clearly stated that Yoda partook "in the decadence of war", which was part of his dark side which he denied. Yoda was in the beginning stages of training to keep his dark side in check. By denying it, it grew within him. Lucas was aware there was ambiguity in the prequels and decided to make it as blatant as humanly possible with the Yoda arc.

 

He never said that. But sure, if you actually filter the basic concept of the arc (i.e: the process of becoming a Force Ghost), then yes, that comes from Lucas.

Where did he deny that? In AotC, he acknowledges it:

"Victory? Victory, you say? Master Obi-Wan, not victory. The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun the Clone War has."

Denying it? Where? He keeps acknowledging the dark side throughout the movies.

No, there was no ambiguity in the prequels as far as the Jedi go. And it's known that the whole "blaming the Jedi" concept comes from Filoni. So much so that George had to intervene to prevent that concept from coming through in some key scenes.

 

I don't watch TCW because it is poorly written and doesn't reflect the same quality and character arcs that are shown in the films and fleshed out in the original EU. The fact that you say Yoda is represented as a completely different character than who we see in the films solidifies my stance on it. In AOTC Yoda shows regret at having to start the war, and in ROTS he is determined to bring peace to the Republic even if it means removing Palpatine.

No, the mass murder of the Jedi and anyone else who opposed them is what made the Empire.

 

He's not, it's just his interpretation of a scene where Yoda confronts the dark side.

 

Even before TCW, there were arguments that Lucas was intentionally portraying the Jedi as being at least partly complicit in the fall of the Republic and Rise of the Empire, through their own negligence - Star Wars on Trial has a fairly detailed argument along those lines, in one chapter.

 

Feel free to share. I don't see any negligence on their part. They just fell in a very elaborate trap made just for them.

Were they perfect? No. Did they have flaws? Yes. Did those flaws compromise anything? No.

P.S: I'm not saying Filoni created the concept. But any hint at it in TCW comes from him.

 

This was most of it:


Author: Scott Lynch: Essay Title: The Son of Skywalker Must Not Become a Jackass (or Finding the Ethical Core of the Star Wars films by Ignoring the Ghosts and Muppets.)


The Star Wars films establish beyond a glimmer of all possible doubt that Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda, wise and well-meaning as they are, are not the sorts of guys you'd want to trust with the management of your mutual fund. The venerable Jedi Masters are actually quite the pair of shifty-eyed SOBs, and the web of guilt, lies and manipulation they construct over the course of the two trilogies is epic.
Detractors of the films (and of the personal vision of George Lucas) enthusiastically seize upon this point as though it were a revelation - as though the series' writer/creator and its fans might somehow be surprised to learn that the two older Jedi are frequently evasive, selfish, and dishonest. But while some second-guessing of Lucas's judgement in the construction of his films is justifiable. in this case it seems both uncharitable and easily refuted. Lucas clearly worries a great deal about the ethical image his characters present - in at least one instance, he worried far too much.

(he then talks about how Han Shot First and Only, the original version, was clearly self-defence, and how the new version looks silly)

Yet even this supremely justifiable preemptive blasting was deemed unwholesome enough to warrant a jarring change. Now, with that under his belt, does George Lucas strike you as the sort of writer/director who could plough through six films blithely unaware that two of his central characters like to fold, spindle and mutilate the truth?
Sure Obi-Wan and Yoda are a pair of liars (and wouldn't you feel like fudging the facts a bit if the alternative was to admit that the Sith played the Jedi like a cheap trombone, and that your bad judgement helped usher in decades of bloody tyranny?). Obi-Wan and Yoda are liars because their deceptions set them up in direct opposition to Luke, for the sake of the story. Materially, the two elderly Jedi are Luke's allies. Morally, the two of them are villains - yes, villains - that Luke must confront and overcome on several occasions in order to bring about a true and lasting victory over the Sith and their Empire.
Make no mistake: Luke's saga in the original Star Wars trilogy isn't a rediscovery of the ways of the Jedi of the Old Republic. It's the story of how he puts himself on an escape trajectory from almost everything they stood for.

Consider the Jedi of the Republic as presented in the prequel trilogy. By and large, they're as decadent (in their own fashion) as the slowly dying government they serve. Insular, ascetic, pompous, detached, overconfident and indecisive - even the better ones display some or all of these traits at various points. Again, critics seem to seize on this as an accident - "How can we completely sympathize with this pack of arrogant space hippies?" The only reasonable response is "What makes you think you're supposed to completely sympathize with them?"

The list of moral screwups perpetrated by the last generation of Old Republic Jedi is pretty overwhelming. Ponder:

1: When presented with the most powerful Force-sensitive being in centuries, they decide not to guide him in any fashion. Apparently, leaving him to run around on his own (or under the tutelage of interested third parties like the Sith) is a much better idea.
2: When presented with clear evidence that a Sith is behind the Republic-shaking events on Naboo, they dispatch the same Master/Padawan team that has already failed to beat the Sith once, with no reinforcements. Apparently, the thought of sending three dozen bright young lightsaber duelists to beat Darth Maul like a dusty carpet doesn't occur to anyone - and as a result, Qui-Gon Jinn is slain.
3: When presented with the massive ethical quandary of a huge army of sentient beings cloned to serve as blaster fodder, the Jedi shrug their shoulders and put the poor suckers to immediate use without discussion.
4: When they become suspicious that someone or something is manipulating Senator Palpatine, the Jedi Council continues to place the burden of spying on Anakin - a Jedi known to be insubordinate, proud and volatile, with possibly compromised loyalties. We all know what happens next.

When Obi-Wan meets Luke Skywalker in A New Hope, he speaks wistfully of the Republic era as "a more civilized age." He neglects to mention, of course, that the tragedy of the Old Republic Jedi was at least partially self-inflicted. He begins his association with Luke not just by lying to him about his father's fate, but by attempting to inveigle him into an undeservedly charitable view of the Order that Obi-Wan accidentally helped destroy. The message is clear in the prequels and Obi-Wan only amplifies it in Episodes IV-VI: the path of the Old Republic Jedi is something Luke must shun, not celebrate.

So much, then, for the prequel trilogy, a murky series of events in which few characters, even the survivors, manage to cover themselves in glory. The Jedi display an almost callous disregard for the emotional comfort of the boy who grows up to lead their slaughter - even Anakin's closest friend, Obi-Wan, is capable of turning a remarkably cold and dismissive shoulder toward him. Consistent ethical behaviour is nowhere to be found ... and the Galaxy suffers for it.
By contrast, the ethical core of Episode IV-VI is almost ebullient; the unpretentious message enshrined at the heart of the original trilogy's story boils down to "stick with your friends and loved ones even when the whole universe seems to have it in for you." In A New Hope Luke rushes off alone the moment he realizes his aunt and uncle might be in danger - a foolish but highly compassionate decision. He then elects to stay with the Rebellion and participate in a suicide mission rather than escape with Han. In the end, his example inspires Han to return as well, postponing his vital reckoning with Jabba the Hutt for the sake of saving his friends and their cause.
The displays of loyalty in The Empire Strikes Back are heartbreaking. Han risks a bitter, lonely death for a slim chance of finding Luke alive. Luke stubbornly ignores Yoda's pleas to finish his training in favor of rushing off to help his endangered friends. Lando Calrissian, in the hope of redeeming himself, gives up his entire Cloud City mining operation while trying to save Han, Leia and Chewbacca. Most strikingly, Luke chooses to fling himself to a possible death rather than accept Darth Vader's offer of a partnership to rule the Galaxy - a partnership that would surely destroy his friends and everything they've fought for as members of the Rebel Alliance.
Luke's moral resolve is an inarticulate and even shortsighted thing, but it shows him to be ethically superior to his teachers - he will not allow his friends to suffer while he stands by and does nothing for them, and he won't even consider using them as chess pieces in some far-ranging game of Jedi against Sith in which the lives of the non-Force-sensitive do not count. The Jedi of the Old Republic discouraged the emotional connections of love and friendship; Luke is defined to his very core by those connections. The efforts of Luke's mentors to mold him in the fashion of their generation of Jedi - more ascetic, more detached - more aloof - fail continually, and while they are cranky about this failure, events prove them wrong in every respect.

Luke, driven by compassion, holds out hope for the redemption of his father in Return of the Jedi even as a ghostly Obi-Wan grumpily continues to assert that Vader isn't worth redeeming. Kenobi seems to want Luke to atone for his mistakes in the quickest, crudest way possible - by killing Vader so Obi-Wan won't have to think about the problem anymore. Of all Obi-Wan's faults, this one seems the most petty and grievous. Even after the full revelation of every lie Obi-Wan and Yoda previously fed to Luke, Obi-Wan continues to begrudge Luke the feelings that define him: steadfast love, undying loyalty and unquenchable hope. Nowhere is the contrast between the Old Republic Jedi and Luke more apparent; never is Luke's commitment to his own ideals more critical.
A more arrogant and detached Luke, an Old Republic-model Jedi such as Yoda and Obi-Wan might have forged out of a more complacent young Skywalker, would surely have met with disaster in his confrontation with Vader and Palpatine aboard the second Death Star. Palpatine's superiority over Luke is readily apparent; the young Jedi has no defense against the Sith Lord's dark lightning.
Killing Vader outright or disdaining him as beyond redemption would have done no good; then Luke would have died or been suborned to the will of the Emperor in Vader's place. Struggling against Palpatine would have been to no avail, with Luke so overmatched. Only Luke's feelings for his father - his decision to spend what might be his last few breaths pleading for Vader's aid - succeed in turning Vader against the Emperor. The Sith Lord dies by his apprentice's hand, but it is Luke's love and loyalty that put that hand in motion.

At the end of the cinematic Star Wars saga, Luke Skywalker inherits the mantle and powers of the Jedi without the hang-ups that brought the Order down at its nadir - the pompous senses of entitlement, superiority and emotional detachment that his mentors failed to kindle in him. Luke faces his destiny as the first of a new breed of Jedi - compassionate and sociable, a more faithful friend and a more honorable foe than the Knights of old. The practical moral qualities he articulates by example are immediately applicable in the real world, and worth aspiring to.
With great power must come a certain amount of healthy self-doubt, and a certain amount of trust in the people closest to you. In embracing this, Luke's personal triumph becomes the Saga's ethical vindication.

 

Right, I edited my post to clarify. I was talking just about TCW, since Lucas oversaw the whole project.

He requested a scene to be changed because it was portraying the Jedi as "the bad guys". That's enough proof to me that it didn't come from him. Still, the fact that nothing was ever explicitly stated in the episodes themselves makes his personal views a mere interpretation.

And the prequel trilogy.

Well, there's no point to question his statements and expecting a response, but...

What was their bad judgement?

Being given a master and being trained in the Jedi ways is not considered guidance? And "leaving him to run around on his own"? Where? Not to mention that it's pretty dishonest to blame the Jedi for letting him befriend a Sith lord. As if the fact that nobody knew who Palpatine really was is irrelevant.

And yet the Sith was destroyed by that same team who had previously failed. His point?

This is just a childish rant.

He must have missed the scene where the senate accepts the use of the clone army and the fact that the Republic the Jedi swore to protect was about to be attacked. I would love to know what would be his solution for such "massive ethical quandary" though.

"compromised loyalties"? Is there any evidence of that that the Jedi (not the audience) should be aware of? And is there any other Jedi that's close enough to the Chancellor that could spy on him?

 

It was the TPM "He will not be trained" decision that was being referred to - at least, before the Jedi changed their minds.

 

Then he's ignoring the reason for why they decided that way at first.

 

I'm guessing that to the writer of the article "too old" and "too full of fear" are not sufficient justifications to leave a very powerful Force-sensitive person untrained - especially when Sith are claimed to be around somewhere.

 

I think Darth Sidious is refering to the fact that Yoda never saw who he really was.. Also worth mentioning the fact that others have mentioned, Yoda mentioned in Episode II that even the older Jedis were somewhat arrogant and blinded by their power.

Mace Windu who was one of the leading Council members was somewhat arrogant.

 

To be fair though Iron, and to agree with Alexrd, the writers argument that the Sith are out there is a false argument at that point in the story because the Council is pretty much in refusal to believe the Sith are back. That is why Mace refers to him (Maul) as a Dark Warrior, they are not ready to believe that the Sith are back in the game.

 

You can literally accuse anyone of being "somewhat arrogant." What arrogant actions did Mace Windu perform? He put his life on the line to save Obi-Wan from Dooku. His retreat on Geonosis show he was clearly not arrogant enough to think he could defeat both Dooku and Jango. Him bringing 3 other Jedi along as backup to face Palpatine doesn't scream of arrogance. Nor does him asking Anakin for help in his final moments. You're just saying Mace Windu was arrogant because you want it to be so.

 

There was also mass murder of many who opposed Republic rule by the clones and the Jedi generals. The Empire didn't murder every single person who opposed them either. The Emperor disbanded the senate, which was comprised of opposition. Just those who took up arms to assert their independence. They didn't murder all senators who opposed the Empire, just those who took up arms against them, as The Republic did during Clone Wars.

If you want to see Jedi and clones exterminating disloyal aliens they know little to nothing about, you can watch Yoda preside over the invasion of Umbara. Many Umbarans were killed on screen by clones, and the Republic didn't even know about their technology or culture.

Yoda was not pure good or pure evil during the prequel era. He was mostly good, but also part evil. He gets better later on, putting his evil side in check, while training with Qui Gon.

The Republic and the Empire killed those who took up arms to assert their independence.

 

You are wrong, and arrogant, your majesty. I really like Mace Windu, he manages to mere both wiseness and badassness. Though he was the one doubting in Anakin the most since the beginning, and his arrogance led to his demise and Anakin's final fall. He followed a dark path in intending to execute the chancellor imedietly.

 

Mace Windu was very arrogant. The Jedi becoming more arrogant as a whole, during the prequel era, is well established canon. Ahsoka would be the example of a Jedi who resisted this corruption, and left. If they all did that, there would be no story. So we have to painfully watch as they go down the wrong path, helping the Republic in a civil war against separatists, to their ultimate demise and the betrayal of their ideals.

Some people see Stormtroopers as perfectly morally justified too. But that's not really what the story is trying to say. The story takes a moral stance of its own. Anyone is free to disagree with that stance, but it is the story nonetheless.

 

Wouldn't you agree that Ahsoka is notably arrogant?

We're talking about someone who has snapped and assaulted or physically threatened people for saying she's a bit young for a Jedi, on multiple occasions, and declared herself a Jedi Knight, on multiple occasions, even though she wasn't.

But then you just compared the Jedi with stormtroopers. So.

 

Umbara never happened. LOL in my canon at least. Once again I don't watch TCW or consider it canon. The Jedi don't murder. It's strictly forbidden by the Jedi Code. That's why Anakin's mass murder of the Tusken's is so shocking.

 

Yeah but you just saying it, doesn't make it so.

I could say "Mace Windu was a part time chef." but since it never happened on film, that's just me making something up that is unproven.

What evidence do you have that he doubted Anakin the most? As viewers we are never privy to the discussion the Council has regarding Anakin. Mace Windu as the head of the Council, is simply the one who expresses their decision.

Again, you provide no specific act of "arrogance," gee whiz, ya think that if a guy was that arrogant he would do something arrogant once in while eh?

And of course, let's blame Mace Windu for Anakin being a whiny, selfish, ungrateful, power seeking, mass murdering psychopath...it was all Mace Windu's fault!

And finally, killing someone who literally just murdered 3 people and is actively trying to murder you is self defense. Far removed from following a "dark path." In killing Palpatine Windu would have eliminated the most powerful conduit of the dark side in the entire galaxy.

 

The Jedi went against their own code by the end of Episode 2. "We're keepers of the peace, not soldiers." By the end of the films, they were war generals. Oops. Star Wars is a fable. When you read The Tortoise and the Hare, you don't say The Hare had the right idea. That's not what you take away from that. It's just the wrong way to read it, just like looking at the OT like it was about terrorists winning against a justified government is the wrong way to look at that. Not that that stops anyone.

 

Yes one of the complexities of AOTC and the genius of Palpatine's plan was that he forced the Jedi (through legal means) to compromise one of their core tenets in order to defend the Republic, which was their ultimate responsibility.