Fanclub We are not droids! *The official General Grievous fanclub v2.0*

Love this Grievous. He's better in the micro-series than in TCW, in my opinion.

 

Interesting take on if Grievous survived his fight with Obi-Wan on Utapau

 

That's very interesting. I like the old EU story of Grievous originally being a tragic general who lost his wife and gradually became corrupted.

 

ObiWanKnowsMe, please use the edit feature or wait for another user to respond to avoid double posting.

 

I know many people disagree but I think that Grievous in the micro-series was the worst version of him.

 

Not everyone; I think the micro-series as a whole is INSANELY overrated and the "style over substance" many people claim the Prequels to be.

 

"FIRE THE EMERGENCY BOOSTER ENGINES!"

He's not my favorite character, not by a long shot but I remember he was the thing I was most excited about when I went to see Episode 3 when I was 13!
He's quite awesome indeed.

 

Are you saying the Prequels are bad?

 

No, I'm saying a pain-in-the-ass vocal minority does. ROTS is actually my favorite Star Wars movie, and one of my all time movie favorites, period.

 

I think that if you are going to be trying to envisage what would have happened had he survived, one could go anywhere from after the events of R.O.T.S.; it is possible to imagine all sorts of things that might be occupying the Empire, and it also depends on what one reads into his character from elsewhere. I've my own ideas on that sort of thing, and they all involve different conceptions about the state of Grievous, Obi-wan, Palpatine, and the condition of the Empire.


I like the 'vocal minority' comment. Anything, anything at all to try seem in the main. Anyway, I think that Clone Wars is perfectly fine and well made. And they made Grievous seem like a real threat to the Jedi order, which would certainly have added more tension into scenes with him.

 

I think we need more appreciation for those who defend Grievous through everything:

 

Ah yes, the things that keep fighting even after you chop their heads off

I love Obi-wan's expression of surprise when this happens:

 

On a coincidental if slightly unrelated note, I just got one in Galaxy of Heroes today.

 

Anyway, I really like these pictures, where somebody has redrawn two of the scenes from Clone Wars:

Better First:

(Possibly one of my favourite ones)

And an attempt, at least, to redraw part of his introductory sequence:

 

Hello. I haven't posted here for a while as I had other things to do and haven't been able to find the time to post something quality.
Anyway, I've decided that my one-thousandth post should be dedicated to my most passionate interest in Star Wars. So here goes.

I'll start with these two pictures.



What is the link between them (aside from looking great), you may ask? Well the answer is that they tie into a certain character depiction that I and other people have shaped for him, one that isn't really displayed much in the event focussed literature but is still comparable with it. And that is General Grievous as the divided personality, the contrast between the predominating new self and the less seen but still extant old. The first picture is simply called 'Hunt' and is captioned with a quote from James Luceno's book: 'Grievous certainly believed that he had always been the cold-blooded conqueror he was now, when in truth his cruelty and prowness owed much to his rebuilding'. - Count Dooku. This displays what is supposed to be the prominently featured character, the cold-blooded killer. Of course canon literature shows actually little of these traits, but that's down to the need to fit in with a pre-established plot (and certain writers' weird ideas). Anyway, it seems on the surface that his character is almost completely irredeemable (but so was Vader's), and that his formerly good self has been erased for good, but is this necessarily true? It should be noted that many of the thoughts on his nature come from others around him, especially those controlling, Dooku and Sidious. What is all too rarely displayed is Grievous' own thoughts, at lest until TCW came along and threw out the old backstory. It should be remembered that these stories are set over many years, and minds are not static things. It is not only possible, but certain that parts of his old self exist, buried deep in a mind much altered by others. This is where we come to the second picture, 'Forever Kaleesh'. Like all good pictures, it tells a story, which someone has gone to the effort of putting into words ('Honour Once Held'). The story is set over a period of maybe twenty minutes at most yet is adds enormous depth to his character. Considering how much time Star Wars is set over this twenty minutes is a mere blip, yet it is all that is needed to provide a truely deep character. If he is his new, heartless self ninety-eight percent of the time the remaining two percent where he can think about, if not be, his old self is enough to provide a counterpoint to this. As I said, minds are not static things, and the occasional retrieval of old memories would, increasing in frequency as the trauma of his transformation moves away in time, come to define his internal character conflict, one where we see the struggle between two almost seperate selves, the find between his artificial self, in a way his body, and his soul deep within. This need not affect his external character much, the Sith could easily believe that he is what they want him to be, and that is why such a depiction is perfectly compatible with his existing stories.
And from this we overall emerge with a much deeper character that the incredibly shallow villain from TCW or the exaggerated stereotypes from Ep. III. For his original character is a unique one, one whose faults mainly came not through belief but through design, the design of others. And unlike Anakin, who chose his path to evil, Grievous dies before he can undergo any sort of redemption. This is where the real tragedy of his story lies. For he was a person who was taken by others and had who he was destroyed, and unlike those who chose their paths his story was cut short, never to experience the redemption he deserved.

-KaleeshEyes

 

Grievous in ROTS was the best version of him because he was GOAT! I agree though that TCW Grievous was lame.

 

Well, I though the R.O.T.S. version was fairly weak as well, although his design is the best of the three versions out there. The way he fights Kenobi in the film is rather clearly contrived to make sure he loses, and we don't in any of the media really get a sense of a military leader who could pose a threat to the Republic militarily. The C.W. version may seem over powered compared to the Jedi in the film, but a version toned down commensurate with the difference in 'power-level' between characters in the micro-series and the film would have been far more threatening, although perhaps a little harder to animate convincingly in the fights.

In terms of character building, if one is to include any sort of depth to Grievous' character, it would require him being in two films rather than the first half of one; in in R.O.T.S., he is rather just put in there, and serves more of a plot device role than a character role, namely, create a situation to have Obi-wan and Anakin together, and create another one to have them apart. He also has no impact on the other characters: Obi-wan does not in any way seem affect by Grievous or his death; he certainly doesn't take anything away from Grievous. Much of any character building could be based on the E.U./'Legends' version his back-story; the 'Canon' version cannibalises this whilst living behind most of the character depth and detail. Fan-fiction has also actually proven a good source of ideas; however, although I find it difficult thinking of ways to fit in all necessary information when re-wrting all the films completely, I don't think that it is impossible that his character could have been written in any depth actually during 2003–04.

Some claim that he foreshadows Darth Vader in some way or another, namely his nature as a cyborg, and (somehow!) the coughing. However, knowing the design process, this idea was not written into his character in drafting the screenplay, but rather ascribed later (which is a common enough process). Using ideas taken from various places, it would be possible to construct a more reasonable parallel, with fall, period of badness, and redemption, but taking place earlier than Anakin. That is, he would rise as Anakin falls. Alternatively, he could be used along with Dooku to reflect light upon our main characters, thereby building them as well. One idea I have had is that one could set up parallel rivalries based on what we see in the as-written versions: Anakin vs Dooku, Obi-wan vs Grievous. Eventually, the two Jedi will be have their personal enemies put at their mercy, and be given the opportunity to kill them; Anakin will, Obi-wan won't. This would differentiate the two Jedi to a greater degree and provide a good moral, and it would create a parallel (sorry, 'mirror') to Luke and Vader. The difference between Vader and Grievous would be that Vader chose the Dark Side of the Force himself, whilst Grievous had a smaller darkness thrust upon him by others; thereby, Luke's is still a much greater feat, hence why Ben and Yoda would think it close to impossible to redeem Vader; it wouldn't take as much mental and spiritualeffort for Obi-wan to redeem Grievous. Certainly, the E.U. backstory provides enough character that would make him, not necessarily 'good', but certainly not all-time bad enough to not be worthy of redemption, given that he is there largely a victim of others.

He also could reflect on Dooku's character. In the R.O.T.S. novelisation (IIRC), it is said that Dooku is filled with a sort of hatred for Grievous. Showing Dooku interact with Grievous on 'neutral' terms (although with some of this contempt leaking through the cracks) would help show Dooku's, and the Siths' duplicitous nature, similar to how Dooku could be set up to be a prima facie political idealist with his Separatist movement, but in fact be leading a more evil movement, and even then, only doing so not out of belief in the movement, but as a way of helping further his (and Palpatine's) goals.
Anyway, as well as providing a reflection of the character other characters, he could provide somewhat of a moral commentary. Immediately, he shows just what an evil bunch Dooku and Palpatine are, but the idea from the E.U. that his hatred of the Republic (and possibly the Jedi) springs from a real injustice perpetrated by the Republic would also provide a commentary on their corruption. This would, when combined with interactions with the other characters, actually help create a very strong moral in the film, namely that there is a difference between calling yourself good (as the Republic and Jedi do) and actually being good. Obi-wan might somehow find out Grievous' past (this would be hard to put in, though), and he would get introduced to an idea of genuine good, superficial good, and also what is behind the so-called bad people, if they are 'pure' bad or not. How I would handle Grievous' own knowledge of this would be difficult, but then, it would again be the difference between having your past self erased by others, and yourself, thereby avoid making it too much of a rip-off from Vader.

Some people, I have noticed, don't like the Clone Wars version of Grievous because, influenced by the P.T.'s depiction of almost infallible super-hero warriors, they don't think that Grievous should be able to stand toe-to-toe with the force wielders. I don't see any reason why this should be the case, and in fact, the shock that they get could be used to emphasise how out-of-touch or full of themselves they are, and also make a few have a re-evaluation on what it means to be a Jedi (hint: it's more than lightsabers, throwing stuff not using your hands, and acting as a military). This could tie in with the idea the the Jedi should actually defend truth and justice, not act as agents of the republic; and that they should seek after the force as a means of personal fulfilment rather than using it for material purposes.​

 

1: Yes, the thing that probably bothers me most about the RotS fight is the foregone conclusion and it's contrived nature. It's got all the stereotypes, good guy on top, complication, bad guy on top and finally the unlikely salvation. And there's how it began. Obi-wan jumps and effectively announces his presence rather than being calm, thinking and sly like the OT character. Then Grievous, supposedly a coward, is foolhardy (the opposite of cowardice) enough to fight him alone rather than suing the enormous weight of numbers on his side. It just comes across as so contrived because nobody would act that way. Sure it was quite good to watch (except for the dreadful dialogue) but it just doesn't make sense. Frankly I don't think it helped the film much having him dying then and there except for being visually exciting. When the problem posed by his *supposed* threat was brought up Ki-Adi-Mundi said that capturing him would end the war, and I think that this would actually have worked better as we would have gotten to see his reaction at his humiliation and other aspects that I'll get to later.

2: Yes, he suffers from being written in after his design. I think George Lucas didn't really know what he wanted to do with the character, and some parts of his characterisation don't quite jib with others. A collection of spare parts to fill a gap if you will. The lack of screen time doesn't help any of the characters in the PT, it's about five films material in three, and RotS is easily two, maybe even three films worth of material. (When you look at it this way the films actually did a good job of fitting in all the material. The story is much more complex than the OT and as a result needs much more time. You've really got two stories, those of Anakin and Obi-wan, and they really need a trilogy each).
And you're right that it doesn't really impact Obi-wan. It makes him look good for beating him, but his emotions are practically unaffected. He just goes back to being same self contained, slightly offhand person he was before. If the scene had to play out that way I think he should have been regretful that he had to kill to achieve peace, as he (and Yoda) should have deontological morality, as a contrast to Windu's and the Sith's teleological morality.
If you had more screen time it would be possible to fill out his backstory more, but not even Dooku's is well filled and he was the more important character.
The destruction of his Backstory by Filoni (and Lucas himself?) was shameful. The original storyline had a couple of issues which I'll explain later, but it was detailed enough to serve well. Now he has a less detailed backstory than Maul and Ventress even! And it reduced his motive to greed and jealousy- like so many other characters already.

3: I don't get how the coughing foreshadows Vader. Vader had the puffing noise, but it was to symbolise his inhumane nature, not be a sign of weakness. There's nothing in the OT that suggests Vader is weak because of his cyborg nature. Luke's becomes stronger after he becomes a cyborg, because it was independent of his belief. The OT measured strength in the force by belief, not some silly pseudo-science. The cough is a comedic trait.
The fall/redemption thing is interesting to discuss, and I did in my earlier post. Grievous actually deserves redemption more than Anakin because (by his original story) he had is life destroyed by others. I mentioned in my post here the distinction between Grievous and Anakin's becoming cyborgs.
As I mentioned in my last post here, Grievous' story as originally presented is a tragedy because he never achieved redemption, redemption from the acts of others.
The idea of Obi-wan not killing him is a good one for the reasons you mentioned. I've thought about Star Wars as not being between good and evil but teleological and deontological morals. By not killing Grievous Obi-wan would show that his moral values are intrinsic rather than born from needs, the idea of Obi-wan actually trying to reach out and redeem his a very powerful, if unlikely one.

4: It's been my belief for a while now that Grievous, despite his name, should be presented as a character who ultimately contains good, and is being used by others. His body is the symbol of this - it gives him great physical power, but it is not really who he is. Or the body is Grievous rather than Qymaen (his Legends pre-transformation name, I'll have more on that later). In any case the power he has is an illusion, he is controlled by others.
The story could provide excellent characters and morals, but it really needs its own trilogy.

5: Amen. I hate the Jedi-as-superheroes thing. It's apparent in the OT that being a Jedi is about belief and intrinsic moral goodness. The force can serve to augment but physical strength is still needed to fight. In RotJ you see Luke do a somewhat-bigger-than-normal jump onto the platform the Vader throws his lightsaber to cut it down. He doesn't reach out a hand, because the force doesn't act that way except when one is concentrating hard (think about how hard Yoda had had to concentrate to lift the X-wing on Dagobah. Contrast that with Obi-wan, who's less experienced, practically throwing Grievous on Utapau). Luke beat Vader physically. He got him confused as to his morals, intimidated him, then wailed on him until he cracked. Only physical force and normal emotions involved.
The Jedi show staggeringly little of the OT philosophy in the PT, and this should be how they fell.
I thought Grievous in 2003 Clone Wars served a very important purpose: He showed that the force is not ultimate, exceptional physical force while being intensely determined and focussed could overcome one who used the force to augment themselves but was physically weaker and less focussed. Having Windu crush him like a bug also crushed the idea and character that had been built, and all simply to serve as an explanation for a trait that should not have been exaggerated the way it was (if Grievous didn't cough as much in RotS I doubt anyone would care that he didn't in CW. But Lucas had to turn in up to 11). It returned to the Jedi-are-unbeatable except when there is severe weight of numbers and/or ignorance (think of Order 66. They didn't know what hit them). This simply isn't very satisfactory from a story and character point of view, and also quite silly.

6: Anyway, I said I'd point out a couple of issues I have with his original backstory. The first is the absoluteness of the character portrayed in Eyes of Revolution and Labyrinth of Evil to a lesser extent. Sidious and Dooku say that all his 'good' has been wiped out. This is highly improbable and makes for a very shallow character which doesn't really need the origin story shown.
Instead it should follow my idea - which is perfectly compatible with the existing literature - that Dooku and Sidious believe that his former self has been wiped out, when in actual fact it still exists deep inside him. You can't force a soul to change, you can only obscure it. Hence the 98/2 thing in my previous post. This would, I think, make a very unique and deep character. If you wanted to keep the timeline established by RotS (which is *sort of* necessary if you want a canon story) then this would still work. You could even have him beginning to move towards redemption when his life is cut short, creating the tragic element that I mentioned before. It wouldn't have to affect his movie presentation in any way, although TCW would probably be incompatible, but it's got it's own issues which mean it probably shouldn't be canon anyway.
The other main aspect I dislike is one text's (I don't even remember the name lol) explanation of his being called 'Grievous'. It said that he dubbed himself with the name after one of his wives/main love interest was killed. Aside from conflicting with Qymaen's supposedly polygamous nature it reeks of cheap, soppy love motive and does not add one jot to his character otherwise. And it's also not very realistic. I would have that the separatist leaders dub him with the name. When his is awakened after the accident he no longer remembers his old name and the new one has been implanted into his memory.
Furthermore, I would have him not even knowing what 'Grievous' means, at least if a certain storyline is to be followed (this may not really work, but who cares).
I've recently finished a story in which this is the case. I'm not going to spoil the plot too much, because someday I might sum up the courage to post it here. Anyway one of his last acts in the story is to ask (a much more moral) Obi-wan the question, what does his name mean? And the reveal of the fact that it means 'to cause great pain and suffering' is cruel and ironic, showing how perverted and contradictory his life has been.

Edit:
I've also noticed how little dignity he really has in life, the way he is controlled by others. There just isn't much for him to live for despite an apparently good position. And his death is very ignominious, shot by his own weapon. His Legends story even had this continuing after death, with somebody attempting to built a war droid out of his shell, and his mask later being sold to an imperial officer. The gut can't seem to catch a break. Indignity all the way.
I'd like to at least give him a decent after-death, maybe return his body to his one planet. Just something to stop the ignominy.

I'd also like to mention his little starfighter that he flies in TCW and that we see all to briefly just before he dies in RotS. It's one of my favourite designs, much better looking than the boring Jedi starfighters. Anyway I find it ironic that Filoni (Baloney?) and co dubbed it The Soulless One. Because if you look at his story, his soul is practically the only thing he's got left!

 

Sign me up KaleeshEyes!

I've come around to Grievous after learning more about him, and I find his charcter very intriguing, espeically becuase...

~ he had no choice in what happened to him, so sad really
~reminds me a bit of Anakin, who while it is true fell to the dark side before being burned, woke up from that with artificial limbs and having to wear a whole suit and mask to survive, resigning himself to serving Sidious after that since he believes he has nothing left with Padme gone

~ his design; the intricacy of it and all of the details, and the way in which he moves and utilizes his appandages is very cool, especially in the PT and CW, and of course the use of four lightsabers at once (how can one NOT be into that? )

That said, imo, he could have been much better used in the PT; as great as he is in it, his character's motivation and backstory was lacking and would have helped your mainstream audience get a clearer sense of what he wants (besides to kill Jedi and follow orders). Though at least with all the different versions, between the PT, TV shows, and books, you can take your pick of which Grievous is your fav. My personal favorite is CW Grievous (LOVE the way he moves and fights in it), though the PT one is just as great.

 

He is my favourite SW villain! And I find so funny his cough!

 

That they decided to give him the cough is interesting; I find it to be oddly endearing; it makes me feel bad for the guy, like I want someone to help him out and stop the coughing.

 

The real story of the cough is that George Lucas thought it would be amusing. Not a fan of it myself (not compatible with his supposed character), although it's okay in TCW where it's only heard occasionally. Stupidly exaggerated in the film though.


It's probably the exaggerated cough, hunch and accent which give me the most problems with his film character. Tone all those down and people would have received him far better than that they actually did, and it would improve the film as well. And make me happier

 

Yep, his cough is quite funny but it makes me sad too for him sometimes. Poor Grievous...give him a cough syrup!

 

i will join

 

Hey, I'm in.

So how did it start?
Why did he start turning himself into a Cyborg?

 

Ask the old EU or Dave Filoni
That is to say there's differing opinions on that subject. The old EU had him being a victim of an experiment after he did something to upset the Banking Clan, while TCW had him augmenting himself so he could be as/more powerful than a Jedi. It really is up for debate though. And there's a major information gap between old and new Canon with a lot of disparate (and sometimes contradictory) Legends sources, or a few offhand comments in TCW.

Also, the shock I get when I receive an alert for this thread.

Edit: Oh yeah, Hi! Nice to see you.