What was the point of Grievous?

The underdevolpment of the villians in the PT is solely for screen enhancing and profit.
George knows that us Fanny's like to see some crazy ish, but he doesn't know us well enough to know that it doesn't necessarily make a better movie.

Maul was amazing, I can't lie about that. But he's killed wrongfuly, Dooku was a nice touch of intelligence and grace.Grievous? He was solely for money. Like everyone in the thread said, he really didn't contribute to the story except for getting Obi Wan off Coruscant.

If Anakin killed Grievous? I'd understand his place in the movie, you'd see how strong Anakin is, and of course there'd be his angry eyes and he'd kill without mercy- *gasp* something a jedi should not do! However, Grievous was shown more as a pathetic coward in the films. He's slouching and coughing constantly, and always running from the fight.
Even in the deleted scene, he kills Shaak Ti by stabbing her in the back!
Grievous was put mainly in the film to show how far the Lucasfilm technology has come, and also just a reason to throw in four sabers at once. I mean, us dedicated fans don't appreciate him and see him for what he is, but those little kids seeing in theatres 3 years ago probably loved him.

 

It's simply one of those things Lucas puts in and then has the plot make appear viable. He needed a reason for Obi-Wan to leave Coruscant and so he made General Grievous.

 

There are billions of reasons for Kenobi to have been off planet, the least of which required the creation a new and otherwise useless character. Another example of poor planning and even worse story-telling.

 

The character is not useless; as has already been discussed, Grievous' function -- apart from his very clear plot purpose of drawing Kenobi away and prolonging the war after Dooku's death -- is to show that organic beings can be "robotized". Like Maul and Tyranus before him, this establishes a component of Vader's character. Vader is part pure Sith rage, part fallen Jedi, and part cybernetic organism. It's a clear foundational structuring of elements ver the course of the PT, which taken together form Darth Vader.

Speaking to Grievous' specific story function, if there are "billions of ways" to draw Kenobi away and prolong the war, then look -- there's your answer. Grievous is one of those so-called billions.

 

Another thing: Setting, AOTC - the Cantina:

"If droids could think, there would be none of us here..."

 

Haha... yes Billion reasons... and like I clearly said, GG was the least of them.
And he was useless, because we already saw Anakin's mechno-hand as a lead-in of things to come. Nothing like poor and unimaginative story-telling... A wise Master was needed to beat a robot with no Force powers? REALLLLLLY? How exciting! How suspense-filled that scene wasn't!!

he was ultra-bombad in the cartoons but look at what he did onscreen.
Absolutely nada, zilch... nothing of merit except cough, run and twirl four glow-sticks before getting shot to death by a Jedi.

GG = worthless.

 

The importance of showing Grievous is to point out that they had a great general who led their armies into battle, much like the Jedi who led the Republic's forces. And because the war had just started at the end AOTC, and their armies were still being built, their military leader was not yet appointed. He served his purpose well, if you ask me. He was just their general.

 

Certainly you're entitled to your opinion, SSS, but that Grievous has both a plot function (drawing out the war, pulling Kenobi away) and a symbolical purpose (demonstrating that a full cybernetic organism -- and not just a single mechanized body-part -- is possible) is enough to justify his existence IMO. I also love the scene in which he twirls his sabers, causing sparks to fly up from the floor! That Kenobi does not defeat him here, and ultimately can only destroy Grievous by blasting his organic components, shows that Grievous presents a more formidable and dangerous opponent than you're allowing.

 

Not if Kenobi used his brain.
The Droid General wouldn't have even had the time to drop his cloak, let alone draw a single saber. Maybe for a Padawan, but posed no threat to any Jedi Knight, or Master because he could not touch the Force. Look, I enjoyed the twirl when it happened, it looked cool... but in hindsight, I find the entirety of that character to be a waste of screentime, and poor excuse to sell more action figures.

I'm not smashing-on anyone's opinion,
I just can't see GG's character being more than what it is to me.

He was more like Mini-me, than Dr. Doom...
Ie, more of a clown than a villain.

 

OBW had NO difficulties against GG in the saber duel. There was no contest! Why he had to resort to a gun is beyond me - he could have just crushed him using the force. In a fist fight, it is only natural that OBW should lose.

I find the link between GG and "if droids could think, there would be none of us here" interesting though. GG (as presented in the cartoons at least) poses a genuine threat to people. He loses out to the best of Jedi surely, but he is a formidable opponent to clones and what not. Just wait till they could mass-produce him

If GG should work, then he needed more screentime! The way it stands it's:
"Who the heck is that guy?"
"Ey, twirling lightsabers - four of them. Awesome."
"What a loser..."

 

I think the point is that Grievous is a thorn in the side of the Jedi, rather than a magnificent ultra-bad*** like you guys seem to want him to be. That he is somewhat underwhelming as a lightsaber combatant does not erase his purpose in the film.

 

Yes, and hence why I think he would need more screen time to prove just that. As it stands, we're right back to: "Who the heck is that?" then "he sucks"

He is simply too poorly developed...

 

Bingo.
He never did anything worthy of really being an adversary to any Jedi, let alone Skywalker and or Kenobi.

 

Look, the question posed by this thread is not "Does Grievous suck as a lightsaber combatant?" but rather "What was his point/purpose in the film?" You may wish to argue that Grievous' lack of Force abilities and underwhelming saber technique make him a poor opponent for the Jedi, but that does not address his purpose -- which is to further distract the Jedi from what is really going on, to split up Kenobi and Skywalker so the latter is easy pickin's for Sidious, to further Sidious' aims with the War, and symbolically to illustrate that a cybernetic organism -- and not just a mechanized part -- is possible in the SW universe.

I'd say that's a pretty impressive list of character functions, regardless of what you think of his "kewl powrzz" or lack thereof.

 

Grievous existed because the movie needed another villain. Lucas had to show Anakin succumbing to his rage and executing Dooku, and that had to happen near the beginning of the film because Anakin's fall took place in the middle. But the movie couldn't be villain-less for the next hour, so Grievous was inserted.

As other users have said, Grievous also existed to split up Obi-Wan and Anakin. The novel expands on this more; after Anakin learns who Sidious is, he desperately tries to get in contact with Obi-Wan, but is unable to. And this is because Palpatine's manipulations made sure that Obi-Wan was away from Coruscant dealing with Grievous.

 

Okay, here is how I see it:

1. Lucas wasn't willing to have any villain stealing Vader's thunder: 1. kill off Maul quickly. 2. kill off Dooku. 3. Have another third villain because I offed the other two (too soon). AND, the three villains make for a nice melting pot where the end product is Vader...

2. Lucas wanted to have drama at the start of ROTS, so he killed off Dooku. Then there were no other villains left - enter GG. He is still extremely under developed!

3. GG is a Jedi killer - proven by his arsenal of lightsabers, that is, unless he is the best light-saber builder in the galaxy (he does tend to lose them rather quickly)

4. GG, despite being a Jedi killer, is easily dispatched by OBW.

So, the point of GG: show us a progressive introduction from Maul to Dooku to GG into Vader. OK, so what... Split up Anakin and OBW, ok - but why does he need GG for that? Either Dooku or Maul would work for that - had Lucas dared to develop them...

Fact is: I think very few would miss GG had we seen Dooku and Maul instead. Having three Sith instead of two wouldn't violate anything, as we see Sideous being the master of adapting - Dooku wouldn't even have to be Sith. Point is, GG does very little. He's there one minute, gone the next...

 

1. Agreed! And IMO all of that constitutes good reason to proceed with Grievous as written.

2. Agreed about Lucas needing drama at this point in the script. It seems to me Dooku's death is perfectly placed to show Anakin beginning the last stages of his descent. I disagree that Grievous is "under-developed" compared to any SW character of this tier, especially villains. He's at least as "developed" as Fett was in the OT, and considerably more "developed" than Piett or Jerjerrod, all of whom we tend to accept as purposeful in the plot without caring about their "development".

3. & 4. Doesn't this just show what a magnificent hero Kenobi is? If Kenobi had such a hard time going up against Grievous, it must have been hell for the other Jedi whom Grievous has slain. This points out Kenobi's awesomeness, not some flaw in the script.

It seems all your complaints are ultimately based on your feeling that either Maul or Dooku should have survived longer, and therefore Grievous shouldn't have been necessary. But since Kenobi killed Maul, the pure raging Sith (which I for one think made for a damn satisfying ending to TPM) and Skywalker killed Dooku, the fallen-Jedi Sith (which needed to happen to start Anakin's fall), we're left with a deficit in villainy and with plot elements that must be addressed. This is not bad writing, but effective and purposeful writing.

 

I see that we just differ on our opinions on how well made the character of GG is

Jango, for me, was not that important a character. Some consider him cool, fair enough. But for me, there is nothing more to it. Same goes with the other characters - but they all served a purpose. As do GG, but to me, he appears to be the by-product of an after thought.

The ending in TPM: brilliant - although, I would like for Maul to have a more dignified death, thus giving OBW a more dignified win - heck, OBW could even have defeated Maul without Maul having to die...

The start of ROTS is very good. I don't mind Dooku getting killed at all - I like it when evil people get what they deserve
Should I mind the ending of ROTJ because Sideous dies?

GG vs. OBW - I didn't really see OBW having much problems with GG before he lost his lightsaber - and his head for not just using the force...

 

The Grievous in season one of the clone wars cartoons, in my eyes, was the awesome grievous. At the end where he is fighting with his three lightsabers (one he has in his foot claw) it was awesome, and they should have made him like that in the movie. In the movie he's just a punk villian. He's still one of my favorite charectors, but I was really disappointed in his performance in the movie. There was so much potential in making him so dark, evil, and sinister. They could have showed him taking on more jedi, and killing them showing off his real lightsaber skills. I could picture him making some deaths slow and painful too. The deleted scene where he executes Shaak-Ti was interesting. That's the Grievous I wanted to see. But instead he can't fight worth a darn in the movie, and another thing is that he runs away. He ran away on the Invisible Hand, and he ran from Kenobi on Utapa (misspelled)..lol. And another thing is when he's saber dualing Kenobi, he gets his arms cut off within like minutes. There was just lost potential in him, which was very disappointing. It was kind of nice when Greivous and Kenobi where hand to hand fighting on that landing platform, but that was about it. I have to agree with above comments like "Who is that?" "Four Lightsabers whoa awesome!" and "Oh he sucks"...lol. Sad but very true indeed.

 

I know the thread isn't about GG and his lack of Kewlness, I don't understand how he can be viewed as a thorn in the side of any Jedi. He posed no significant threat, so what's the point?

 

Grievous posed a threat by continuing the War, and by distracting Kenobi long enough for Sidious to seduce Skywalker. Lest we forget, Kenobi was a master swordsman; he killed Maul who killed Qui-Gon, so we know Obi-Wan's got skillz. That he dispatches Grievous after a saber duel, a prolonged chase and hand-to-hand combat is a testament to Kenobi's power, not Grievous' weakness.

At all events, Sidious uses Grievous as a pawn. Grievous doesn't have to be the magnificent powerhouse we see in the animated series, and in fact is more interesting for his cowardice. His purpose is to distract -- via the war, via his Jedi-killing shenanigans -- while Sidious accomplishes the real work.

 

My take on the "point" of Grievous is along the lines of Vortigern99's. Grievous served multiple purposes of significance. GL could have kept the other villains around longer, but clearly that wasn't the way he wanted to do things; I think it worked out okay. It seems there was a pattern to show Sidious surviving throughout the prequels (had to happen anyway I know) while all his minions, or to be accurate pawns, get killed off. Perhaps I'm looking too much into that, but perhaps there is something to that pattern of the secondary villains all dying off.

I find Grievous to be an intriguing character. I don't see him as showing cowardice, not really, until the force push delivered by Obi-wan where we see in Grievous' eyes he now knows he's overmatched. He comes off as smart by retreating when the odds are not in his favor. (I don't think Dooku cowardly, though he retreats when the odds are not in his favor; when he fights Yoda for instance; thats what villains generally do until trapped) He does show anything but cowardice when, instead of letting his thousands of droids blow Kenobi away, he accepts the challenge to personal combat. (if he had run away right then and there, THAT would have been cowardice) He was in control of the situation and the odds favored him. They did not on the invisible hand, hence his hasty withdrawl; facing Obi and Anakin, no one would like their odds facing that duo. (what purpose would it serve in honorably dying? He IS the leader of the droid armies, its important he keeps himself alive) Those actions may seem cowardly, but his person is more important than honor; think of high ranking generals, there aren't many Alexanders running around nowadays because they are too valuable to their side to risk their lives needlessly for personal honor.

In a way Grievous is reminiscent (to me) of villains in other movies and books I've read by his personality traits: cautious to fight against strong adversaries, arrogant, crafty one might call him, etc. etc.

Edit: spelled Grievous' name wrong.

 

I found Grievous to be cowardly because he was all talk and no delivery.

When he had the upper hand he talked very big "I am so superiour", "I will crush you", "you are so weak" etc. Then when it came time to actually fight he ran away. The only time he did fight he got beaten very quickly and promtly ran away again.

He bragged and boasted of his own ablility but never really showed it.

Dooku was nowhere near as much of a braggart or a coward, he did boast of his own ability but he also backed it up with action. In AotC he moped the floor with both Anakin and Obi-Wan and held his own pretty well against Yoda. In RotS he put up a bit off a fight before loosing to Anakin.

So Grievous was not shown as much of a threat, we never saw him do anything. He bragged alot but when he had to put his money where his mouth was, he lost badly and quickly too.

Also his function came out of nowhere, we had seen the droid armies for two movies now and they never had a general, at least we never saw one. But now all of a sudden there is one.
Second, in AotC the jedi say "we must capture Dooku to stop the war". Then in RotS Dooku gets killed but this still does not stop the war and instead there is now someone new that they have to stop in order to stop the war. So it is like, "we have to kill Dooku to stop the war", "we killed Dooku, is the war over now?" "Oh no, now you must kill general Grievous to stop the war."

Lastly his role can not be compared with Piett or any of the other imperial officers because none of the OT films had a substansial part of one film devoted to the hunt for Piett or the stopping of Jerjerod. He had a far bigger role to fill but he had pretty much no development.
And I find the excuse that all the villains in the PT had to weak just because of Vader is a bad excuse. The PT films has to function in some way in their own, to have weak, uninteresting villains just because a better one will come three movies later is not good enough. You could have had good, strong, interesting villains in the PT and that would not have affected Vader at all. Esp. if Anakin was the one that killed him or her then we would have seen this powerfull character that had done great things for much of the PT and yet he gets beaten by Anakin. This would make Vader even more powerfull, not less.

In all I like RotS and find it to be a good film but Grievous is pretty much a waste and weakens the film rather than making it better in my mind.

Regards
Nordom

 

Your insight, verve and wit are most appreciated, Nordom. "In all I like RotS and find it to be a good film but Grievous is pretty much a waste and weakens the film rather than making it better in my mind." -- I couldn't have summed it up any better.

 

There are several points to Grievous.

1) To foreshadow Vader's transformation into a cyborg.

2) To serve as a figurehead for the Separatists once DuKoo is killed.

3) To further the point about how Sidious uses people then discards them (as he had with Maul and DuKoo.

It doesn't bother me at all that he establishes that you don't have to be a Jedi to wield a light saber.

I thought the 4 arms thing was pretty cool.