PT Was Tartakovsky wrong or was Lucas about General Grievous's character?

Tartakovsky went against George Lucas's original idea for General Grievous. In my opinion he should have listened to Lucas.

 

General Grevious is what Lucas created him to be in the films. Because Tartakovsky got a basic sneak peak at what grevious was going to look like for ROTS he took that and ran with it telling everyone from the beginning that whatever way he made him in the little cartoon was 90% positive to not make any sense with what the actual character would be in the films.

There is no such thing as "lucas being wrong" about something he created and flashed before someone else's eyes before it was done.

All the cartoon episode he was in was was pandering to fans showing a big violent, bloody monster with two lightsabers doing ridiculous things and slaughtering ridiculous amounts of jedi. Like a lot of that show was.

 

I really don't see much of a difference between the writers' ideas other than Grievous being someone that was new to everyone at the start of the war.

 

Tartakovsky. Not that he's wrong and stupid. Just that his version of the character was "way too overpowered". Everything was highly exaggerated in that cartoon, and while I enjoyed it back then, when I watch it now I can't really stand it. I like the ROTS Grievous. Badass, but in a different way.

 

Grievous was cool either way, but nothing can beat Grievous from ROTS, he was amazing and such an evil yet awesome character, he's my favourite villain from SW. I love the characteristics of Grievous, sly and powerfull but always looking for a cheap way out of tricky situations. And what can beat 4 lightsabers?? We saw Darth Maul in TPM with his double lightsaber and thought woah! We'd never seen that before, but then we see Grievous pull out 4 lightsabers! I was amazed the 1st time I saw that scene. I feel that ROTS got show what Grievous is really like and showed the characters full potential.

 

This guy:

 

Yeah, the guy who created the character wins. Especially given that CW Grievous removes any need for Sidious to have an apprentice at all.

 

No, he didn't. At the time, Lucas had just approved the design. There was no voice or animatics to go by. What some people/fans don't understand is that Genndy's micro-series is mostly a caricature due to its stylized nature. Mace couldn't defeat a huge droid army on Dantooine. That contradicts the events in AotC where Mace and the rest were overpowered by them (which were much less). And this is just an example. It doesn't mean that Genndy's series isn't canon, it just needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Yeah, well, it seems a LOT of fans forget the salt and are rather upset that TCW doesn't follow Genndy, the so-called "true vision."

 

No, some of us just can't accept the pathetic TCW Grievous who can't even kill a Padawan.

 

While I wouldn't call Grevious "pathetic" I do admit I'd like to see him do something that earns him the name of "Jedi-killer." We know in the EU (LOE) Mace battles him without being killed, as well as Obi-Wan in ROTS, but Grevious does have a reputation, whether earned or just ascribed.

 

Well I don't think there is any wrong or right between Tarkovsky and Lucas about the character of Grievous. The style of the cartoon CW 2D was meant to be like that. The characters looks badass because they're a exagerated in purpose. Mace Windu is destroying an entire droid army by himself. Yoda got a LAAT down with his force power. No, I don't think there was any misunderstanding between the two, the cartoon was simply made for the fans to get something to enjoy between AOTC and ROTS.

 

In LOE Grievous kills lesser Jedi, and in the ROTS novel we hear about some Jedi he has killed.

Size matters not.

 

ooohhh burnnn

 

I agree but then all character in CW 2D was overload... That was the style of the cartoon. Does not Windu beat an entire droid army bare hand? I don't think he would have done that in AOTC or ROTS.

Anyway as for Grievous, if Lucas would have keep the Shaak Tii's execution scene it might have pictured the character a bit more as a Jedi killer. Master Tii is no easy target.

 

She is when she's kneeling with her back to Grievous and offering no resistance whatsoever.

 

What about Grievous's cyborgification origin story? The old one (he was injured in a shuttle crash arranged by San Hill, and rebuilt with modifications, including to personality and memory) is still being used- even in recent Character Encyclopedia books that have things like Adi Gallia no longer being Corellian.

 

Mace straight up beats him with a STAP in Obsession. In the General Grevious comic it manages to make him seem fallible but still a threat. Unlike TCW which has him get beaten by Gungans

 

That criticism doesn't apply since he killed Nahdar Vebb, which IIRC was just promoted to Jedi Knight.

Has the Jedi reputation diminished when they were being defeated by "mere" battle droids on Geonosis? I don't think so. The same applies to Grievous and the Gungans. Both Grievous and the Jedi were overpowered by numbers, which makes their defeat much more believable than anything that has been offered/shown.

 

One Jedi. And Savage has a higher kill count then him. It's obvious the writers disfavor him. Or are just inconsistent with antagonists

Their were millions of droids at their disposal at Geonosis. Grevious got beat by less then a handful of Gungans. I call that bad writing. I could deal with him getting Zerg rushed by 20ish of them or so while slaughtering a dozen of them only to be overwhelmed by sheer numbers though.

 

I am referring to his inability to kill Ahsoka Tano, and I don't care if she is the hero of TCW, it shouldn't have happened in the first place. Its one of the laundry list of reasons why TCW makes complete and totally no sense in comparison to everything else.

 

Eh I can deal with her eluding him with dumb luck. Shadow Warrior can piss off though

 

Damn, I accidentally voted Lucas as having the "wrong" vision for Grevious. Oh well.

Tartakovsky was kinda forced to decide on his own what Grevious was going to fight like. For all we know his animation wasn't even finalized on film. Neither one of them is "right" or "wrong" about it. Lucas' version is the official one, but Tartakovsky's approximation isn't bad.

Granted, the old TCW series isn't something I care to revisit that much. Too bad it isn't more available, but it's a curiosity at this point and nothing more for me.

 

I find Tartakovsky's more "fun". Of course, it probably wouldn't have worked as well in a live action film, but honestly without the injury he sustains at the end of the original CW series, I would think him a pretty lame villain myself as he is at the start of ROTS. I think if anything though, Tartakovsky's version shows that Lucas was somewhat wrong on the notion that no PT villain should outshine Vader. I remember reading this somewhere (anyone???), that he didn't want the iconic status of Vader trumped by a new villain from the PT. I think this was a mistake since it then watered down the entire energy and defocused the villain (phantomized!) and threat. As MANY have argued over the years, Maul, or someone like Maul, being the main villain all the way through could have done wonders. "Fun" Grevious for me really highlighted that I was missing that villain-as-threat and not as "pointer to something else" or as "pawn in a much larger scheme...you'll see!!!" in a Star Wars film.