Mace Windu vs. Darth Sidious

[Darth Angelus]

Ok, I searched back on this forum and could not find any topic on this duel, so I decided to make one.

This is one of the most discussed topics on Star Wars forums, and many fans are (or at least have been) passionate about it. More than once has this derailed into flame war. I sincerely hope this does not happen here.

The argument, of course, is about what truly happened here. When Mace Windu got the (apparent) upper hand in the fight, was it legitimate, and if so, to what extent? When Sidious dropped his lightsaber, was it against his will, or on purpose?

On the one hand is the direct, possibly a bit simplistic approach that what you see is exactly what happened. That would indicate Sidious faked it when he ran out of juice for lightning (the "I am too weak. Don't kill me, please!" part) but not before.
The other is a bit more complex. That would say Sidious is significantly more powerful than Windu and could have won much earlier, without Anakin's help, but needed to look weak to turn Anakin, or something along those lines.

About my position. Let us discuss power ratings (geek subject, but still) first. Prior to Episode III, fans had quite good reasons to believe Sidious was the significantly stronger character. I would have said the same. It is the Emperor, for crying out loud. Mace Windu is a bit of a secondary character, even though he is the second greatest Jedi. I am a bit of a math guy, so I like numbers. Even so, I would not normally express it like this about relative character power in a work of fiction, but here is a figure. If it were my story, I would have Windu (or his equivalent) in the range of 70-80% of Sidious (or his equivalent). Roughly that power level seems to work best with the narrative and their respective roles. That is taking account my overall knowledge of speculative fiction. Many other fans think like that, which is they would believe Windu could not have won unless Sidious let him.
Here is the catch, though. It is not my story, nor any other fans. Various quotes from Lucas and Gillard about the making of Episode III would put Windu a lot higher. Reinterpreting normal launguage into a percentage would place him around 90-95% of the emperor's power. It may sound counter-intuitive in the overall saga, but I cannot interpret the quotes as Mace Windu being below 90% of Sidious. I am inclined to put Windu only a very slight percentage below Sidious in power. No, I won't argue how incredibly powerful Sidious was in some Expanded Universe novel, or justify that position in any other way whatsoever. A lot of angry, passionate Star Wars fans have flamed me after the movie came out, years ago, and seem to think I and others like me owed them an explanation that made sense to them. That is ludicrous, as flaming someone retelling character power ratings based on quotes by the author of the saga would be an undeniable case of shooting the messenger. Being mad at the person who just retells someone else's story is more than a little stupid. If you don't like what you hear, it is the author who wrote it. You can say other people misinterpreted the author, but those quotes did not really seem that ambigous, so people had good reason to think the key people working on the movie rated merely a few percent below Sidious in power. How can the messenger really be blamed for someone else's story?
The tl:dr summary: Personally, I would have written Windu to be around 70-80% of Sidious's power level, if it were my story, but quotes from George Lucas seems to suggest a figure more like 90-95% of Sidious (probably in the upper part of that range).

That was for power ratings. Now for him to need to look weak for Anakin. That, I am not sure what to respond to. No, Sidious had a trump when it came to Anakin, that Anakin needed Sidious alive to save Padme (or thought he did). How Windu being dead once Anakin arrived to the scene would have changed that, I cannot see. Does everyone need to look helpless in order to turn someone? Did Sidious play helpless when he turned Dooku, too?
Sure, the way things played out, Anakin' being forced to make a split second decision to cut off Windu's hand accelerated his turn, but the same could be said about saving Luke in Episode VI, and that just happened to play out that way. I guess since Sidious is a schemer, unlike Luke, interpreting mirroring narrative situations differently might be somewhat justifed, so half a point. Just half, because it cannot be proven (except for that his running out of juice for lightning was fake).

So, we stand with an issue that cannot be given a final answer, and I have looked at it from every angle I can think of. I have studied math and logic at university, within computer science, so I believe I have fairly sharpened logical skills. I see dead ends in this discussion. I have no strong conviction, but here is what I think (not a scientific opinion)...

Sidious letting Windu win is probably the most rational answer, given the narrative and the characters involved, the relative power ratings (the genre typical ones for their specific roles, not the Episode III quotes). Sidious's motives are harder to speculate on, because he might not have needed to appear to lose, and throwing his lightsaber might have posed a risk if Windu had gone for the kill in the seconds immediately after when Sidious rolled away in the window, before Anakin had quite gotten into position to interfere.
Still, it can be argued that having the Emperor beaten by a second role cheapens him.
So, overall, seeing the genre, that does make the most sense.

Still, if I were to speculate about what Lucas intended when he wrote the scene, I would have to go with Windu actually beating him in the lightsaber part of the duel. That seems to be what Lucas says in the commentary, and it is perfectly consistent with the Prequel trilogy as a whole. I am inclined to believe the most direct, simplistic answer is true here. It is just my guess.
And no, I don't really think I need to justify how it makes sense to those who think otherwise, either, as I am not the author, but merely speculating on what the author thinks.

Here is the thing...power ratings of characters are an incoherent mess in the Prequels. Dooku handily beats Anakin in Episode II, despite the latter being 2.5 times more potentially potent (Anakin pre-immolation is 200% of Emperor, whereas post-immolation, he is 80% of Emperor, like Dooku, and 200/80 = 2.5). Yes, Dooku had more training and experience, but ten years for Anakin is not really that short (Luke learned quite a bit in much less time) and he should have surpassed Dooku long since, with or without dark side, as he is far more gifted.
Jedi took down very few troops during Order 66 (yes, they could be outnumberd, but I would expect a council Jedi like Ki-Adi Mundi to take down more than one or two, when small bears with primitive weapons in Episode VI were so effective against stormtroopers).
An amazing TWO troopers were tasked to take out the greatest Jedi, Yoda, and Sidious was surprised Yoda survived that. Yes, Yoda did need to survive for the story of the Original Trilogy, but he did not need to survive as far as Sidious was concerned. He should never confuse his own motivations as a narrator to have Yoda survive with Sidious's motivations. Sidious would have every reason to wish to see Yoda's demise, and he should be written in character to reflect that. There should have been a true attempt on Yoda's life during Order 66, which Yoda would survive anyway.
Let us not get started on the dimunitive size of the clone army, roughly a million in a galaxy of thousands of star systems, about a whopping 100 for each of the ten or so thousand star systems that were to join the separatist (according to Dooku in Episode III). That would not be enough to uphold an occupation of defeated hostile planets, if the civilians were stripped of all weapons. Fighting a galaxy scale war with that is laughable. Sarcasm: I guess United Kingdom had around thirty soldiers during World War II.

I could go on and on. Point is, numbers and power scales relations are completely off in the Prequels. As is major parts of plot (even the scheme to stage a fake war to come into power and take out the Jedi is brilliant, and would have made for great movies if better made). So, anyway, when power rating coherence is this poor, how can you claim that someone who Lucas would rate only slightly below Sidious in power actually being able to legitimately defeat him without Sidious letting him to be impossible? How exactly is that any more absurd than Dooku defeating 2.5 times more potentially potent Anakin in Episode II, or fighting galactic war with about a million soldiers?

And don't say it cheapens the Emperor! This is the guy who made Greedo shoot first and put Jar Jar Binks in there.

Tl;dr: Power rating-wise, the Prequels are an incoherent mess, so there is no reason to expect things to be otherwise here.

Can anyone else see why I am inclined to believe Lucas intended the direct, simplistic answer, given past experience, rather than him thinking Sidious was too powerful for Mace Windu, when he never seemed to think about power ratings forming a coherent system otherwise?

Sorry about long post, but I hope you enjoy! You can just laugh at the Prequels.

 

[PTeppic]

I guess the answer is partially addressed by: who is the target audience?

 

[Darth Angelus]

I guess the answer is partially addressed by: who is the target audience?

Yeah, good point. People are inclined to want it to fit into how they want to see the saga, which is understandable. Then again, it may have been purposefully left ambigous in hopes of pleasing two different parts of the fanbase (succeeding also in inciting vicious and ultimately pointless and stupid flame wars on forums).

When it comes to the Star Wars Prequels, I think they try to please so many that the movies lose direction. Like redlettermedia.com pointed out in the review of Episode II, Samuel L. Jackson was probably included to appeal to a certain demographic, which would be black people. To add my comment on the matter, people don't like films that don't seem to represent their kind, which makes movie producers include token minorities (the single female or the single black person). I am not against including black people, but the thing with token minorities is that they are essentially a ploy to appear more diverse than is the case. It is calculated business.
Now, about Samuel L. Jackson, he has a bit of a "king of cool" reputation, and I guess the target audience his inclusion was intended for would want him to be kind of badass. Some hardcore old school Star Wars fans would want the Emperor untouchable by someone like him, but they would pay for ticket regardless.

Also, I think Lucas has a tendency to let real world popularity spill over. Boba Fett was a bounty hunter in Episode V-VI, but he was never mentioned as the best in the galaxy. He became a very popular character, so he was retroactively written to be the best in the Expanded Universe. Then, in Episode II, his armour was polished up and he got a new first name, Jango. Essentially, it is the same character. Had Boba been unpopular, he would not have been called the best, nor would Jango be in Episode II.
As for Darth Vader, he got a whole prophecy (one of the worst I have seen in speculative fiction) that in no way helped the story or made his character more interesting. redlettermedia.com also explains how pointless that is, in his Episode III review, and I agree 100%. Darth Vader is only cool in Episodes IV-VI, and the prophecy is never mentioned there. Again, real world fame spilling over into story.
And I would guess the same goes for Samuel L. Jackson as Mace Windu. I think Mace Windu was written to be a stronger Jedi than he would have been if the actor had not had that fame (and reputation) in our world. I mean, the "This party's over." comment in the Geonosis arena is more Samuel L. Jackson than it is Jedi, really.

Anyway, I don't really dislike Mace Windu. Unlike the two young Anakins, the actor is at least cool. Some people would say he is miscast, but it never really bothered me that much. The Prequels suffered from poor dialogue and script. That is how he became a flat character. Most actors in the Prequels were good, actually, and did a fine job with what they had to work with. Hayden, I can't say, because the only other film I have seen him in is Jumper, which had a terrible script, too.

I just think Samuel L. Jackson's fame and repuation may have spilled over into the character's power level a bit. That would irk some fans, but really, it is far from the worst problem with the Prequels.

 

[Huttman]

Whew, that was a long post. When I watched the fight I noticed something very interesting not too many others I know picked up on. After Sidious killed the first three Jedi and the fight moved into his red office, there was a moment when Mace Windu was caught with Sidious' lightsaber at his chest and Windu's arms spread wide open. The look on Windu's face after looking down at the saber was one of disgust like I can't believe that just happened and you're toying with me. I believe Darth Sidious was indeed playing with Mace to keep the fight going until he could sense Anakin was nearby. That, and I'm sure he was a great swordsman too.
The Sith rely on their anger to fuel their motives, but patience was an attribute Palpatine had in abundance. Mace Windu and many other Jedi were too confident in their own self like Yoda had said earlier. I think that was the reason Palpatine had the upper hand with the Jedi from the start.
On a side note, I just recently read the Revenge of the Sith novel and it was very entertaining. Great detail went into the 'conversion' of Anakin by Palpatine. Also, I enjoyed how they described how Palpatine got his lightsaber into the Chancellor's office in the first place.

 

[Cayal]

The problem with the fight was it was entirely unbelievable and that is because Ian McDiarmid, like Alex Guiness in a New Hope, was too old to make it look decent.

Also the fact he killed 3 Jedi Knights in a second was too unrealistic.

 

[C Of K]

Welcome, Darth Angelus. I think you've done a fine job of answering the question. As you've stated, there can be no definite answer on this issue until someone with the authority gives an answer. Until then, all we can do is go with our gut. As Huttman pointed out, there are clues that we can look to in the movie to satisfy our own views. ( Heya, Huttman )

My own opinion? I believe it was all a ruse. There's no telling how accurate Palpatine's visions of the future are, but we can be sure that he does plot his actions based upon what he's seen, and that he was able to see into the future much more clearly than the jedi. Knowing this, it's highly suspect to me that the same guy who killed 3 or 4 jedi masters in a matter of seconds, and tore up the senate chamber in combat with Yoda, lost his weapon just as his prospective protege was arriving, whereby Anakin would be forced into making the choice of whether to save the life of Chancellor Palpatine (a man he needed) or to maim Windu (a man he had issues with)

Remember, by cutting Windu's hand off, Anakin wouldn't believe that he was causing Windu's death. Anakin thought Palpatine was beaten. It was a split second choice, which allowed Anakin no time to consider pros and cons. His own desires weighed heaviest on him in that moment, and he acted upon them. I think Palpatine set the whole thing up, and counted on all of that. He played Anakin as deftly as he played the whole Republic, and the jedi order.

I mostly interrested in the claims you made below.

Here is the thing...power ratings of characters are an incoherent mess in the Prequels. Dooku handily beats Anakin in Episode II, despite the latter being 2.5 times more potentially potent (Anakin pre-immolation is 200% of Emperor, whereas post-immolation, he is 80% of Emperor, like Dooku, and 200/80 = 2.5).

Where do these figures come from (please don't say Super Shadow ) I've never seen any indication of exactly how powerful Anakin was. I think in Episode 1 Obi Wan said Anakin was, potentially, off the scale. To me, that means there was no way to gauge Anakin's potential.

Not only did Dooku beat Anakin in Episode 2, he beat both Anakin and Obi Wan without breaking a sweat. But, there is a quote in Episode 3 that is very valid here. Anakin stated that his powers had increased 2 or 3 times since they last met. This indicates one thing in particular. Anakin had not yet reached his potential by Episode 2. Whatever his potential was, it was currently out of his grasp. So at the time, Anakin was not more powerful than Dooku.

An amazing TWO troopers were tasked to take out the greatest Jedi, Yoda, and Sidious was surprised Yoda survived that.

Yes, it is somewhat amusing that only two of them went to kill Yoda. I can only guess that Palpatine expected the clones to use more troopers, as they had with the other masters, and was unaware that the clone captain only brought one other guy with him.

 

[Darth Angelus]

Welcome, Darth Angelus. I think you've done a fine job of answering the question. As you've stated, there can be no definite answer on this issue until someone with the authority gives an answer. Until then, all we can do is go with our gut. As Huttman pointed out, there are clues that we can look to in the movie to satisfy our own views. ( Heya, Huttman )

My own opinion? I believe it was all a ruse. There's no telling how accurate Palpatine's visions of the future are, but we can be sure that he does plot his actions based upon what he's seen, and that he was able to see into the future much more clearly than the jedi. Knowing this, it's highly suspect to me that the same guy who killed 3 or 4 jedi masters in a matter of seconds, and tore up the senate chamber in combat with Yoda, lost his weapon just as his prospective protege was arriving, whereby Anakin would be forced into making the choice of whether to save the life of Chancellor Palpatine (a man he needed) or to maim Windu (a man he had issues with)

Remember, by cutting Windu's hand off, Anakin wouldn't believe that he was causing Windu's death. Anakin thought Palpatine was beaten. It was a split second choice, which allowed Anakin no time to consider pros and cons. His own desires weighed heaviest on him in that moment, and he acted upon them. I think Palpatine set the whole thing up, and counted on all of that. He played Anakin as deftly as he played the whole Republic, and the jedi order.

Thanks!

Aye, that is probably what makes the most sense overall, and I do understand why many fans think like that. Unfortunately, I don't think the answer that might seem the most rational is neccessarily what Lucas had in mind, because of Prequels. So, as much as I can buy that reasoning in principle, as it is what makes for the most coherent story, I am more inclined to think the kick was legitimate and Palpatine's ruse did not start until the "I am too weak." part. That sounds like what he is saying, anyway, in the commentary on the film, but it is hard to be sure. Again, I have no problem whatsoever believing that what is worst for the story to thinking individuals may have been just how Lucas intended it. That is the problem.

I mostly interrested in the claims you made below.



Where do these figures come from (please don't say Super Shadow ) I've never seen any indication of exactly how powerful Anakin was. I think in Episode 1 Obi Wan said Anakin was, potentially, off the scale. To me, that means there was no way to gauge Anakin's potential.

It was very long ago, some Lucas quote, I am not quite certain where, but as I recall in The Making of Revenge of the Sith. And oh, yes, I know Super Shadow is a farce.

Not only did Dooku beat Anakin in Episode 2, he beat both Anakin and Obi Wan without breaking a sweat. But, there is a quote in Episode 3 that is very valid here. Anakin stated that his powers had increased 2 or 3 times since they last met. This indicates one thing in particular. Anakin had not yet reached his potential by Episode 2. Whatever his potential was, it was currently out of his grasp. So at the time, Anakin was not more powerful than Dooku.

Doubled, I believe he said. I always figured that was one of Anakin's exaggerations, like the one of Obi-Wan being as Wise as Master Yoda and as powerful as Master Windu. If you trained something for ten years already, your skill won't double in the next three. If anything, there are diminishing returns. I am willing to accept his skills improved greatly in the three years, but really, he is very bad in Episode II for being 200% of Emperor with ten years of training. Of course, Obi-Wan does seem to say he was sloppy in training because he would otherwise rival Master Yoda as a swordsman.
The point is that I find the Prequels incoherent and unbelievable, like he went with the first, rushed draft just to get it over with so he could get on with the CGI. We have to constantly suspend disbelief further and further, and make excuses. Once or twice in a film is ok, but it happens so many times it ruins the films.

Edit: Just filled in a word.

 

[Darth Angelus]

Whew, that was a long post. When I watched the fight I noticed something very interesting not too many others I know picked up on. After Sidious killed the first three Jedi and the fight moved into his red office, there was a moment when Mace Windu was caught with Sidious' lightsaber at his chest and Windu's arms spread wide open. The look on Windu's face after looking down at the saber was one of disgust like I can't believe that just happened and you're toying with me. I believe Darth Sidious was indeed playing with Mace to keep the fight going until he could sense Anakin was nearby. That, and I'm sure he was a great swordsman too.
The Sith rely on their anger to fuel their motives, but patience was an attribute Palpatine had in abundance. Mace Windu and many other Jedi were too confident in their own self like Yoda had said earlier. I think that was the reason Palpatine had the upper hand with the Jedi from the start.
On a side note, I just recently read the Revenge of the Sith novel and it was very entertaining. Great detail went into the 'conversion' of Anakin by Palpatine. Also, I enjoyed how they described how Palpatine got his lightsaber into the Chancellor's office in the first place.

It is true, he did look open, and Mace Windu was making a face that could be interpreted like that.
The scene looks kind of dumb, though, like Cayal pointed out. One of the other Jedi had Palpatine's back open for well over a second. Even I could have plunged my lightsaber into him at that point, I think, and I never practiced fencing, but the Jedi just stood still, waiting nicely for his turn to be cut down. So it is hard to know whether an opening you see onscreen is really an opening.

Oh, again, sorry about long initial post. I tend to get carried away when I want to be thorough. I just had to go through initial subject, summarize the arguments for both sides, and then explain why I think Lucas may very well have intended the least sensible answer, story wise.

Cheers.

 

[C Of K]

Doubled, I believe he said. I always figured that was one of Anakin's exaggerations, like the one of Obi-Wan being as Wise as Master Yoda and as powerful as Master Windu. If you trained something for ten years already, your skill won't double in the next three. If anything, there are diminishing returns. I am willing to accept his skills improved greatly in the three years, but really, he is very bad in Episode II for being 200% of Emperor with ten years of training. Of course, Obi-Wan does seem to say he was sloppy in training because he would otherwise rival Master Yoda as a swordsman.
The point is that I find the Prequels incoherent and unbelievable, like he went with the first, rushed draft just to get it over with so he could get on with the CGI. We have to constantly suspend disbelief further and further, and make excuses. Once or twice in a film is ok, but it happens so many times it ruins the films.

True Obi Wan wasn't nearly as wise as Yoda, or as powerful as Windu. I always found that comment funny. But there is reason to believe that Anakin's power had grown. He defeated Dooku in Episode 3. I believe there are also other reasons why his words ring true. As a young man, Anakin was trained as a warrior by jedi who would never reach the potential that Anakin was capable of. In such situations, it can be difficult for a student to quickly surpass his teachers.

But fighting for 3 years in an actual war... Working out his "force muscles" that hard, for that long, would doubtlessly cause his abilities to sky-rocket. Now, he wasn't training to be a warrior, he was living the life of a warrior, constantly using the force to go beyond the teachings of his masters in order to survive. Under those circumstances, I could see his powers doubling in 3 years what it had previously taken him 10 years to achieve.

Take a sports star like Michael Jordan, for instance. In many ways he's a very comparable example to Anakin, being a man of exceptional potential on the court. As a young man, he trained for many years to become a basket ball player. He played in college, and then went pro. It took him a few years of playing at pro level before "things" suddenly clicked. Anyone who watched him win his first NBA title could swear they saw it the moment things suddenly clicked for Jordan. He went nuts, and played on a level no one had played before. The few years he had spent in the NBA could not compare in quantity to the many years he had spent practicing as a much younger man. The quality of the years he spent competing against pros 82 days a year allowed him to reach his potential much faster.

 

[Darth Angelus]

True Obi Wan wasn't nearly as wise as Yoda, or as powerful as Windu. I always found that comment funny. But there is reason to believe that Anakin's power had grown. He defeated Dooku in Episode 3. I believe there are also other reasons why his words ring true. As a young man, Anakin was trained as a warrior by jedi who would never reach the potential that Anakin was capable of. In such situations, it can be difficult for a student to quickly surpass his teachers.

But fighting for 3 years in an actual war... Working out his "force muscles" that hard, for that long, would doubtlessly cause his abilities to sky-rocket. Now, he wasn't training to be a warrior, he was living the life of a warrior, constantly using the force to go beyond the teachings of his masters in order to survive. Under those circumstances, I could see his powers doubling in 3 years what it had previously taken him 10 years to achieve.

Take a sports star like Michael Jordan, for instance. In many ways he's a very comparable example to Anakin, being a man of exceptional potential on the court. As a young man, he trained for many years to become a basket ball player. He played in college, and then went pro. It took him a few years of playing at pro level before "things" suddenly clicked. Anyone who watched him win his first NBA title could swear they saw it the moment things suddenly clicked for Jordan. He went nuts, and played on a level no one had played before. The few years he had spent in the NBA could not compare in quantity to the many years he had spent practicing as a much younger man. The quality of the years he spent competing against pros 82 days a year allowed him to reach his potential much faster.

First of all, thanks for a good and civil discussion.

You are making some interesting points about Michael Jordan, and he seems to be a fascinating example, which must have been very exciting to follow. Your reasoning is generally sound, but I do think you are underestimating the sheer scale of 200% of the emperor.

To get a rough idea, one must really look at a sport where the results are numbers that might be compared. Since you brought up an example real world sports, I think I might do the same, so let us just take a look at Men's 100 metres in the 2008 Summer Olympics.

A new World and Olympic Record was apparently set by the winner of the final, with the time of 9.69s. The worst result in all heats was 12.60s in heat 5, and that was almost one second slower than the second worst of 11.61s in heat 7, so it is a bit off to be here, really (one has to wonder if he was hurt). Just do the simple division 12.60/9.69 = 1.300309598. That is, worst runner (80th place) took 130% of the time of the winner and record breaker. Conversely, the winner ran at 130% of his speed, or did 130% of his performance. In this Olympic situation, 9.69s is obviously a vastly better result than 12.60s. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. It is at the other end of the scale of Olympic runners. 130% of the worst performance.

And Anakin has the potential to perform at 200% of emperor (according to Lucas). 200% of the speed of worst runner would halve the time, so it would be 12.60/2 = 6.30s.

You will find similar results in any measurable sport, really. All the time. In a world championship, the winner is not even near 200% of the worst performance. An imaginary person performing at 200% of the 100th best person in the world would put him in a league FAR above the existing world champion. Which sport it is does not matter.
A few percent performance increase is a big deal in any Olympics or world championship, really. It can be the difference between being the winner and not being among the top twenty. A major threshold in a person's skill can be just a few percent. Now, Basketball is not measurable in this way, but if Michael Jordan were just 110% of the second best in performance, it would be more than enough to explain the "much better than anyone else", because it really is. But even without knowing much about him I'd dare to swear my life that he was not 200% of his peers. That performance level is well beyond human reach. I am not belittling him.


So, about Anakin being 200% of emperor and Dooku being 80% again, let us entertain the idea, and translate it to 100m results.

Make the emperor be able to run 100m in 10s (10m/s on average). He is about as good as they come without being a child of prophecy, after all, so I place him near the real world record, with an even number for simplicity.
Anakin has the potential to perform at 200% of him, average speed 20m/s, enabling him to do 100m in 5s. That is a superhuman result obviously, normally reserved for superhuman characters. But Anakin was made from prophecy, after all, and his midi-chlorian count was off the charts, so let's go with it. He has an otherwise unattainable potential.
Dooku would perform at 80% of emperor, average speed of 8m/s for a time of 12.5s.

Ok, so Anakin has the otherwise humanly unattainable potential to run 100m in 5s (it is fiction), and has practiced 100m for ten years. Does it seem like he would be unable to beat 12.5s then? Even if he slacked like hell, had no real hard training etc., is that even remotely possible? Yes, he can underperform relative to his real potential because he lacks real experience, but how could he underperform THAT much?

Ok, yes, this is probably mathematical geekness (I have studied computer science and math at university), but since we are discussing how "logical" the story is, I would consider this quite relevant. And I needed to present it in numbers to get my point across.


Finally, there is a bit of a contextual difference between what Anakin says and what Lucas does. When Anakin says his power had doubled, it is really more of a figure of speech than an accurate mathematical estimation. "I have become one point twentyseven times more powerful since we last met." does not really work (unless possibly if it is Data or a Vulcan from Star Trek). Besides, trash talk is usually intended to make the opponent uneasy, not presenting the truth objectively, and characters are prone to exaggerate quite a bit. Remember Dooku saying he had become more powerful than even Yoda, then failing to back it up?
Lucas, by contrast, has no real reason to talk about character potential in percentages unless he meant what he said. At least, that is what I think. Yes, I think he just said some number without thinking about it. That is what he seems to always be doing, making things up without thinking about what he is saying. That is, when he isn't letting real world popularity spill into fictional characters (Boba's popularity into including Jango, giving Anakin a prophecy that was pointless, and having Samuel L. Jacksons reputation affect Windu's power in the story) or inventing characters that are funny to himself and five year olds. That is why the Prequels don't really work.

Anyway, cheers!

 

[C Of K]

Of course! You present compelling arguments, and you know what you're talking about. There's little proof to go on, so it's difficult to berate someone's opinion. And some of us love geekiness. We wouldn't be on the Star Wars forum if we didn't.

Your illustration about the runners made perfect sense, and I can see where you're coming from. 200% of the emperor's potential would seem an astronomical feat. Michael Jordan could not have performed on a level that much higher than his peers. But, to listen to his most accomplished peers speak of the man, you might believe he was closer to that number than would seem possible, because sports like basketball are more mental and less physical than they would seem. The more an athlete believes that he can't compete with Jordan, the more Jordan's potential would seem to skyrocket to impossible heights.

Magic and Isiah employ countless figures of speech, and probably exaggerate a lot too. In the 80s, Magic and Larry Bird saved NBA basket ball. The NBA was able to successfully market them in a way that no one else was marketable. In the 90s, Jordan rose above them both, by doing things neither were ever capable of. Jordan's Bulls competed against Magic's Lakers for the 1991 NBA title. I was a huge Laker fan. The Lakers won the first game, and lost the next four games. Needless to say, I did not like Michael Jordan afterward But, over time, I couldn't deny him. Over the next few years he grew more and more infuriating, and then he quit in the prime of his career... He actually got bored of the sport that was making him $40,000,000 a year in endorsements, and went to play baseball... I've never heard of any other athlete getting bored of a sport at the professional level because he was THAT much better than everyone else. (and amussing rundown of his finances at this site http://www.netjeff.com/humor/item.cgi?file=JordansSalary.txt ) Jordan may not have been 200% better than his peers. That figure is unrealistic. But he can be considered head and shoulders above them, which is as vague as George Lucas often is

From a fictional standpoint, which is Anakin's realm of existence, George Lucas has set up rules by which, only through the event of a miraculous birth can one sentient being achieve a power 200% greater than what would seem the height of human possibility. As it is, George Lucas' statement that Anakin was potentially 200% more powerful than the emperor is not an indication that Anakin actually ever reached that potential.

Ok, so Anakin has the otherwise humanly unattainable potential to run 100m in 5s (it is fiction), and has practiced 100m for ten years. Does it seem like he would be unable to beat 12.5s then? Even if he slacked like hell, had no real hard training etc., is that even remotely possible? Yes, he can underperform relative to his real potential because he lacks real experience, but how could he underperform THAT much?

The problem with trying to gauge the power level of every character in the prequels, is that never, at any time, are we made aware of exaclty how powerful any character is. It's difficult to be sure if a character is exaggerating or throwing up random figures. Is it just bragging when Dooku claims he's more powerful than any jedi? I think he believed it, and was proven wrong. Dooku was known for great arrogance. So, the only thing we can hope to do, is attempt to make sense of the vague statements made in the movies. Consider something Yoda established in Episode 3, the truthfulness of which, if it can not be 100% proven, would at least be difficult to dispute. In the last half hour of that movie Anakin had still not achieved a power equal to the emperor. The difference in power between them was so great that Yoda ordered Obi Wan to face Anakin, simply because Obi Wan was not nearly strong enough to face the emperor. Yoda could have been wrong about that, but it's unlikely. Yoda had possibly reached his own potential after nearly 900 years of growth. I've heard it said that the emperor was possibly 100 years old. So it's possible that he had been growing in power for at least half a century and probably longer.

The way I interpret Anakin as a student is something like a weight lifter. A man who can only bench press 100 lbs. at one point in time, can work at it sufficiently so that at some time in the future he will be able to bench press 300 lbs or more. The same guy can more than increase his physical strength 200%. 3 of the first 10 years of Anakin's training took place before his teenage years. From 9-12 most children can't hope to surpass adults in strength. So let's consider the 6 years he spent from age 13 to Episode 2. Anakin is 19 in that movie. Yet, he is not on his own at the beginning of it. In fact, he actually complains about this to Padme, that Obi Wan is holding him back. In a sense, the jedi are constraining his growth during that period, in order to mold him along a certain desired course. Even during those 6 years, Anakin is leashed, and is unable to quickly begin surpass his teachers.

Cut to Episode 3. Anakin has been an established jedi knight for some time. He is not so thoroughly constrained by others as he once was, and he has been exercising his powers in almost nonstop combat for years. Under these circumstances, the Chosen One, who can be considered "Super Human" would be able to double his powers in 3 years, and still not reach his potential. During the period of Episode 3, Anakin was obviously still somewhere closer to Obi Wan in power than he was to the Emperor. I believe I heard Goerge Lucas describe Obi Wan as an 8 on the power scale by Episode 3, whereas Anakin was a 9. (I think he made that claim on the Episode 3 DVD commentary.) This could only mean, that during Episode 2 Anakin, though a star pupil because of the destiny placed before him, was not ahead of most other jedi in the order, and his power was nothing to brag about at the time. Doubling it in 3 years might not be as amazing an accomplishment as it seemed to be.

As it is, Anakin never reached his full potential. After his disfigurement, George Lucas made the statement that Anakin was probably closer to the equivalent of Darth Maul in power and ability. The rate at which it had been possible to grow in power had no doubt been severely staggered.

 

[Darth Angelus]

Yes, I see where you are coming from, too. What you say does seem correct. I cannot really comment on Michael Jordan very much, because like I said, I know very little about him, besides having heard the name. I am not really a sports fan. I am fairly sure I would have enjoyed a rare and special moment for someone when their skill skyrocketed. Like I said, you can only use numbers when there is some form of measurable performance, though. Sports which don't result in objectively comparable numbers (and I am not counting sports where the contestants get scores from judges, but real, absolute mathematical figures), you can't talk about percentage of performance, really. The world record in high jump seems to be 2.45m. 200% of that is 4.90m (astronomic, unrealistic and superhuman). Take the world record in any measurable sport and double the result (or halve if it is a time) and you get an estimate of 200%.

The factors you mention are all true, of course, it is just that I am almost positive they fail to account for a gap in potential of the size Lucas mentions. Everything you say would put Anakin below his maximum potential in Episode II, even significantly below, but THAT much below. Superhuman potential to run 100m in 5s. Actual skill slower than 12.5s. If he had any kind of training, even sloppy, even held back.

My point is that people (including) overestimate what figures of speech in normal language, such as "head and shoulders above the rest" would translate into in mathematical terms (percentages). If A is 110% of B in some sport, then A would be A LOT better than B in normal language. If you are 110% of the second best in the world, then you would make sensational news indeed.

Heck, even Dooku being 80% of the emperor puts him further below the emperor than is mathematically feasible.
Running 100m in 10s (emperor) would count as outclassing beside a guy who ran the same 100m in 12.5s (Dooku), and I seriously doubt a single sports commentator would have argued otherwise. If only the two of them were running, the slower one would look absolutely pathetic. While I do definitely think the emperor was stronger, it would still be by less. Dooku put up a good fight against Yoda, who was almost even with the emperor. If the emperor's perfomance was 10s, I'd estimate Dooku's to be around 11s, not slower. At the very least, I don't really find it feasible to put Dooku below 90% of emperor (11.11s). Again, it is my speculation, and it is obviously not canon, but the films don't show a gap in performance to justify Dooku being that much worse.
Remember, a few percent is a lot on championship level. If one runner had an average time of 10s in 100m and another had an average 11.11s, you'd expect the former to win the vast majority of contests. People's performance don't really vary all that much from their personal mean, short of injury. Yes, possibly relatively to the small margins in a championship, but not in percentages. Look at the link in my last post. The winner's worst time was 10.20s. Compare that to his best, 9.69s. 10.20/9.69 = 1.0526... Best result was slightly above 105% of worst, and worst was exactly 9.69/10.20 = 0.95 = 95% of best.
Let us say one contestant is 95% of another, as a mean performance. The better contestant can perform below his mean, obviously, but so can the worse contestant, and if the two coincide, the better contestant is still likely to win. The worse contestant is really only likely to win if the better contestant performs poorly and the worse contestant performs well in the same contest.
That is also why I speculated Mace Windu was about 90-95% of Sidious. With less skill than that, he could not even compete in any meaningful manner, and Lucas did explain he could compete, unlike his posse. Ok, you might argue that compete only meant joining the contest, and even someone with a 12.60s result was in 100m Olympics, but even Mace Windu's followers were "in the competition", too. They just lost it very fast, so I don't think just being there was to "compete" with the emperor, or anyone could, including Jar Jar Binks. It must have meant putting up some kind of semblance of fight. And being rated a level 9 swordsman (same as the emperor), I don't think he'd be below 90% of the emperor based on that, either.

Really, my objection is that the gaps are too large. I think saying Anakin was about 120% or maybe 125% of the emperor might work, would put him outside midichlorian scale (the Jedi would have no reason to make a scale that high), and maybe matches what we see when we take every factor you correctly bring up into account. Dooku should have been put around 90% of the emperor, again based on what we see. Then Dooku beating would work. Remember 120-125% of the emperor is still a MONSTER. When he realized his full potential, or even came near it, he'd be invincible.
However, 200% of the emperor is, like you said, astronomical. There is no other word to describe it. Well, that is not exactly true, maybe there is. "Demigod" comes into mind. Yes, that is possible in fiction, but no, in no way does Anakin's performance in either Episode II or III reflect that. If it were true, he would just defeat enemies so easily we'd be bored.

So in essence, I agree with everything you say, but I still maintain 200% is too much, even taking all that into account. WAY too much.

He pulled those numbers out without thinking them through, likely. Same as he did with the script, which would have been a rough draft not receiving critique.

So, back to main question of thread. If it were real people, analyzing motivations and such, my overall impression of would lean towards Sidious throwing away his saber on purpose.
However, my speculation on Lucas intention would be that the disarming of Sidious from his lightsaber was legitimate. That is most direct and simplistic, but also most consistent with how I perceive Lucas planning his scripts. He even seems to be saying it, but I am not sure.

 

[C Of K]

200% is probably too much. When I first saw that figure it seemed astronomically high to me. I imagined Anakin moving the moon like Superman did in one of the Christopher Reeve movies. But I didn't have much choice but to accept George Lucas' words. However, I think he is practiced at pulling random figures out of thin air, and being utterly vague in his explanations. He's a man who's created a huge world that masses of people take more seriously than he does in many ways. When people have questions and questions and questions, George Lucas is not going to have logical answers prepared at all times. (maybe not even most of the time) He may be the god of the Star Wars universe in most respects, but Luke Skywalker was once a 60 year old general. Obi Wan once died in a script that was once titled Revenge of the Jedi, and Padme was once called Lady Arcadia Skywalker. Obi Wan tried to protect her from stormtroopers while she was pregnant with twins... I just think that most of the time he doesn't really know the answer, so he's often vague, and when he is not vague, he overdoes it.

If Anakin was to be compared to Jesus Christ, then by the definition of some religions he could be considered a demigod, I guess. His mother was human, but his father... PLot points like that leave George Lucas with a big unknown by which he can make outrageous claims that, if given more thought, he might not make otherwise. When I heard him refer to Anakin as a 9, and Obi Wan as an 8, it seemed like he had just at that moment concocted an imaginary scale by which he might illustrate that Anakin was ahead of Obi Wan, but that they were still extremely close. He just as easily could have said Anakin was a 4.5, and Obi Wan was a 4, but it probably wouldn't have seemed impressive enough for him or many of the fans to accept that the two heroes were not close enough to a two digit whole number.

But, the figure he supplied will satisfy many fans of Star Wars who want to see the jedi as super heroes. I don't know if you've played The Force Unleashed games. The character in that was immensely over-powered, but it received George Lucas' personal approval. So in some respects, I think even he wants to see the jedi as super heroes.

Personally, I've always enjoyed the idea that these guys were futuristic knights. Their main weapon was a laser sword, but they could do a few great tricks as well. Now they're pulling star destroyers out of the sky, running a mile a minute, bringing people back from the dead, and all sorts of things. It's no wonder he pulled out a figure like 200% so easily. Probably best not to take his figures as gospel. What would it hurt if some of us decide to disregard some of the stuff he says?

 

[Darth Angelus]

Agreed. And I think your first impression on the 200% was right on spot. Closer scrutiny only seems to confirm that it is ludicrus.

About him getting an endless stream of questions from fans who take Star Wars more seriously than he does, and him not having a logical answer to it all ready, you are probably correct there, too. Some fans do take Star Wars more seriously than is really healthy, as I see it.
It is not possible for him to completely grasp the full scope of his own saga, obviously. Many fans even expect his answers to be consistent with the Expanded Universe, which is stuff he didn't even invent himself for his saga. While he approves it, he only seems to include what he likes into the G-canon. And to be fair, I think that is ok. Nowhere has he promised to take any other work than his own into account.
So when some fans bring up that Kit Fisto was some great master, implying he was almost on Windu's level, it sounds like, I find that humorous. The quotes from Lucas regarding the scene itself indicates Windu is on a quite a bit higher power tier than Kit Fisto, and if that is what Lucas envisioned, that is what goes.
Now, I always found it hard to accept that other fans would disregard Lucas's words, to be honest. Still, I have come to look at it from another angle in more recent years. Obviously, fictional work is for the enjoyment of the consumers, and too much disbelief will ruin this very enjoyment. So, I indeed think it won't hurt to disregard the most outrageous claims that he seems to have not given much thought, such as this Anakin's potential being 200% of the emperor.

The problem still remains that the scripts of the Prequels seem too rushed. Plot and motivations tend to collapse when put under scrutiny. Think back to The Phantom Menace. Check out this part of redlettermedia's review, which made me aware of it. Palpatine obviously wants to be elected Supreme Chancellor, which is why he has Amidala put a vote of no confidence on Chancellor Valorum, right? But then why does he have his henchmen do everything in their power to prevent Amidala from getting to Coruscant? What if the queen had signed the treaty, or been killed why they ran the blockade? How would that get Palpatine elected as a Chancellor?
It seems like he, as Sidious, is doing the exact opposite of what will accomplish his goal as Palpatine.
Which brings us to the argument of Windu being dead when Anakin arrived would have prevented Anakin from joining him. How can one be sure of that? Why would turning Anakin to his side with Windu already dead (when he still had the saving dying Padme trump) be any more difficult than being elected Chancellor without the senate even being made aware of the crisis on Naboo? If anything, I'd guess it would be less difficult. What was Palpatine's other plan to be elected, so to speak, if his henchmen had actually been successful in stopping Amidala's escape? Does he have several plans, with the one we saw being plan B, but if so, what was plan A? It is never explained. Instead, Sidious seems to be trying to create obstactles for the very chain of events that got his Palpatine persona elected. Then plot requirements step in to fix up his election anyway. Not at all what I'd call brilliant writing for portraying a scheming person.
If we accept (with no indication to that effect whatsoever) that his election the way it did happen was his plan B, then who is to say Anakin's turn the way it did happen was not also his plan B? Do you see what I mean? Prequel scripts are too incoherent and messy to really figure out character motivations logically, when a ton of factors are left unclear.

Still, under most narratives in the genre, I'd agree that him throwing his saber intentionally may indeed have been the more rational answer (perhaps not completely rational, either, as it seems like gambling with his own life and might have gotten him killed; or maybe might not, story is not clear there, either).
It is hard to deduce the "logical" answer to the question when so many factors are unknown (at least as far as the G-canon is concerned), but yes, I'd slightly lean towards him throwing his saber if I'd have to guess.
Still, like I pointed out, I'd lean the other way from listening to Lucas and trying to understand what he says as I believe an ordinary person who is not into Star Wars would interpret them, which means trying to push away bias as much as possible.
My dilemma lies there, really. In the end, I'd probably go with the legitimate kick and disarming (of lightsaber) version, as I generally don't disregard what the author says (the way I read it) lightly, and believe that something must be far more absurd than that.

Sure, Sidious may be stronger than Windu overall, but how do we know he is a better duelist, too? In no other film has he even used his lightsaber. His power that we saw in Episode VI was all about using the Force and had nothing to do with dueling. Could not suited Vader or even Luke have been better fencers, due to his high age? We don't know.
Point is, him being a worse duelist than Windu wouldn't even neccessarily destroy that (not saying he was, because even with perfectly even matches, you can lose). He still might have won the subsequent Force battle. If we look at the Original Trilogy, neither Yoda nor Sidious were saber duelists. They were just great Force users. They were just not shown as physically fit to duel, but at the same time they were above all that. In a way, I think it may have been best to keep them that way. But they had to go flashy for no reason. In the Original Trilogy, Obi-Wan was "too old for this". In the Prequels, all you have to do is pump yourself up with the Force to move flashy and physically compete with (sometimes much) younger people.
Why does strong with the Force have to be almost linearly translated into lightsaber skill? Isn't that shallow and superficial (even though the Prequels definitely encourage that sort of kindergarten thinking)?

So even with taking the Original Trilogy into account, with all the emperor's dark side power, I think the emperor being physically beaten by a Jedi in their prime could work, only to have the emperor subsequently win anyway with his Force powers.
So just remember that even if we accept that the kick was legitimate, we in no way accept that Windu would have been the ultimate victor of the confrontation had Anakin not shown up.

Do you think Yoda and Sidious needed to be good duelist, or even duelists at all?

Anyway, yes, I played the first The Force Unleashed game, and yes, it was completely over the top, almost like the Clone Wars cartoon. I can't say I enjoyed it very much. It felt mostly like a sandbox for playing around with Force powers, rather than a finished game. Challenge was low and I was too bored to finish it.
I don't really consider it canon, and I think it comes fairly far down the list officially, too, but I see what you mean. I think Lucas sometimes tries to please everyone, including having characters for almost every thinkable demographic in the Prequels, which often destroys coherence.
When it comes to the cartoon, I see the general events as such as canon, but not the scale of the Force powers. The latter becomes inaccurate due to adaptation to cartoon requirements, I believe. It is just a powerful way to express it when you don't have access to impressive visual effects.

But anyway, the issue of this topic has long since ceased to matter to me to any significant extent. I am just trying to examine arguments on both sides, in the hopes that we can all move on, and also make the point that the position someone believes to be most likely from the scope of the saga itself and its internal implications is not neccessarily the same as the one they believe the author actually intended. It is good to remember that distinction.

As far as I am concerned, each and every fan can basically take their pick on which position they believe in, really.

 

[C Of K]

The expanded universe has become an amusing imitation of the Star Wars universe over the last 15 or so years. Living planets that can travel through hyperspace, darkside sith ships that have a mind of their own, entire civilizations that have no presence in the force, jedi queens, 1,000 year old sith emperors who can do almost anything, 100,000 year old monsters who can do even more...force Wizards/Angels/whatever they are, that seem to be the embodiment of the balance between the lightside and the darkside. All this stuff is so cringe-worthy to me. I've learned to ignore so much that I find laughable about Star Wars, but a lot of fans enjoy it more than the movies. They find it easy to disregard George Lucas. To each his own. Because the end of Star Wars seems to be nowhere in sight, if you wish to like Star Wars, it would almost have to be a requirement that you disregard something. It's not quite a requirement yet, but I think it's getting closer to that point all the time.

I love redlettermedia! No question about it, as a writer, George Lucas overreached his abilities with the prequels. If you're fine with watching them as pure adventure stories like the original trilogy, they aren't really that bad. If you try to follow the political twists and turns, or the mysteries, you'll quickly see the plot get irreversibly tangled in itself. So far as I can tell, the mystery of Sifo Dyas was never solved in the films, and it doesn't make much sense to leave a plot thread, like the true origin of the clone army, hanging that way. Yes, we know Dooku commissioned them somehow, but Sifo Dyas' part in the whole thing was never made clear.

Which brings us to the argument of Windu being dead when Anakin arrived would have prevented Anakin from joining him. How can one be sure of that? Why would turning Anakin to his side with Windu already dead (when he still had the saving dying Padme trump) be any more difficult than being elected Chancellor without the senate even being made aware of the crisis on Naboo? If anything, I'd guess it would be less difficult. What was Palpatine's other plan to be elected, so to speak, if his henchmen had actually been successful in stopping Amidala's escape? Does he have several plans, with the one we saw being plan B, but if so, what was plan A? It is never explained. Instead, Sidious seems to be trying to create obstactles for the very chain of events that got his Palpatine persona elected. Then plot requirements step in to fix up his election anyway. Not at all what I'd call brilliant writing for portraying a scheming person.
If we accept (with no indication to that effect whatsoever) that his election the way it did happen was his plan B, then who is to say Anakin's turn the way it did happen was not also his plan B? Do you see what I mean? Prequel scripts are too incoherent and messy to really figure out character motivations logically, when a ton of factors are left unclear.

Great points that I had never considered before. With the plot of the overall story getting more and more complicated, and the movies all exceeding two hours, George Lucas was left with no way to answer the "what if questions" that needed answering. I once saw a youtube video, ( I wish I could find it now) in which George Lucas, Rick MacCallum, and a few other people had just finished watching Episode 1. The atmosphere in that room was so uncomfortable. No, wait, here it is, another video by redlettermedia...

The important part starts at about 1:15 seconds into the video.

Still, under most narratives in the genre, I'd agree that him throwing his saber intentionally may indeed have been the more rational answer (perhaps not completely rational, either, as it seems like gambling with his own life and might have gotten him killed; or maybe might not, story is not clear there, either).
It is hard to deduce the "logical" answer to the question when so many factors are unknown (at least as far as the G-canon is concerned), but yes, I'd slightly lean towards him throwing his saber if I'd have to guess.
Still, like I pointed out, I'd lean the other way from listening to Lucas and trying to understand what he says as I believe an ordinary person who is not into Star Wars would interpret them, which means trying to push away bias as much as possible.
My dilemma lies there, really. In the end, I'd probably go with the legitimate kick and disarming (of lightsaber) version, as I generally don't disregard what the author says (the way I read it) lightly, and believe that something must be far more absurd than that.

It does sort of seem out of character for the emperor to gamble with his own life, but I've come to see him as something of a gambler. One instance in particular, where I know he gambled with his own life was at the beginning of Episode 3. One way or another, he was ultimately responsible for his own kidnapping. I'm certain Lord Sidious made it clear that Chancellor Palpetine was not to be killed by seperatists, and yet, he was stuck in the middle of an enormous battle. The ship he was aboard was scrapped and somehow was able to crash on the planet, with Palpatine's life intact. And yet, your point still stands, that the casual moviegoer wouldn't necessarily pick up on the fact that Palpatine was responsible for his own kidnapping, or the possibility that he threw his own lightsaber away.

So far as Yoda and Palpatine are concerned, before the prequels, I never imagined them with lightsabers, and I wish it had remained that way. I considered them both far beyond carrying physical weapons, running around, and jumping all over the place. I liked it when their limits were undefined. They were useful for a few wise words, the half concealed threat of their considerable powers, and maybe a small demonstration here or there, but what we got were two very aged ultimate commandos. Listening to Yoda grunt, and snarl, and generally skitter around like pikachu was disappointing. I think George Lucas decided to make things the way they were in order to please the casual moviegoer, as well as himself. Before Episode 2, people who had always been die-hard Star Wars fans were die-hard Star Wars fans despite the fact that none of them had ever seen Yoda fight. Many die-hard fans loved it, but some hated it. I've come to accept it, but it will never impress me.

I am just trying to examine arguments on both sides, in the hopes that we can all move on, and also make the point that the position someone believes to be most likely from the scope of the saga itself and its internal implications is not neccessarily the same as the one they believe the author actually intended. It is good to remember that distinction.

Yes, and that point has been well established. These last 3 movies sure don't make it easy to know what's going on.

 

[Darth Angelus]

I think we pretty much agree on everything, or at least have very compatible views of Star Wars.

The expanded universe has become an amusing imitation of the Star Wars universe over the last 15 or so years. Living planets that can travel through hyperspace, darkside sith ships that have a mind of their own, entire civilizations that have no presence in the force, jedi queens, 1,000 year old sith emperors who can do almost anything, 100,000 year old monsters who can do even more...force Wizards/Angels/whatever they are, that seem to be the embodiment of the balance between the lightside and the darkside. All this stuff is so cringe-worthy to me. I've learned to ignore so much that I find laughable about Star Wars, but a lot of fans enjoy it more than the movies. They find it easy to disregard George Lucas. To each his own. Because the end of Star Wars seems to be nowhere in sight, if you wish to like Star Wars, it would almost have to be a requirement that you disregard something. It's not quite a requirement yet, but I think it's getting closer to that point all the time.

I think Expanded Universe stuff you mention can be entertaining. They basically have to invent stuff and loosen the leach on their imagination a little bit in order to not get new Sith plots over and over. A lot of the times, these stories are better written than the Prequels.
But, of course, the far-fetched stuff must be disregarded. Basically, I think the Expanded Universe has to be seen as a continuity of its own. I think of Star Wars in layers of canon, and regard the G-canon (movies) as the core, which is canon to everything. The C-canon (novels, by other authors) is canon to itself (including other works belonging to the same continuity), but not to the G-canon. Which means, basically, that I disregard the Expanded Universe when it comes to this scene

I love redlettermedia! No question about it, as a writer, George Lucas overreached his abilities with the prequels. If you're fine with watching them as pure adventure stories like the original trilogy, they aren't really that bad. If you try to follow the political twists and turns, or the mysteries, you'll quickly see the plot get irreversibly tangled in itself. So far as I can tell, the mystery of Sifo Dyas was never solved in the films, and it doesn't make much sense to leave a plot thread, like the true origin of the clone army, hanging that way. Yes, we know Dooku commissioned them somehow, but Sifo Dyas' part in the whole thing was never made clear.

Agreed. While many fans do have problems with the Prequels and do not feel involved, he expertly put his finger on what is not working with them. It enhanced my understanding of the nature of the Prequel's flaws, no doubt.
The Prequels indeed sort of work as an adventure story, but the plot and the mysteries...let us just say there are A LOT of threads hanging loose. The whole thing is developed further in the newly released novel Darth Plagueis (it was rather well-written), but as redlettermedia would say, we should not have to read some novel to fill in the gaps.
Dialogue and characterisation is leaves a lot to be desired, too. The Prequel characters are way underdeveloped. Most don't even have a personality, but even that is preferred over the annoying, whining brat Anakin. I must say I find it very hard to imagine the cool, awesome suited Vader in Episodes IV-VI as the same person as that silly boy. He was intended to be a good boy initially, and The Phantom Menace, for all its faults, at least got that across.
Which actually brings me to the next point. In spite of my initial impression, it is quite possible that redlettermedia is righ in that Attack of the Clones is actually worse than TPM. The first Prequel at least had a new, cool, if one-dimensional villain. Darth Maul had a style that we had not seen before. Jango was just recycling old stuff (Boba) and Tyranus was, well, Christopher Lee as Sith, much like Mace Windu was Samuel L. Jackson as Jedi. Kudos to Christopher Lee for doing such a great job with what he had. Even Samuel L. Jackson's coolness made his otherwise totally forgettable character somewhat better.
But really, I think Darth Maul was probably the best new character in all of the Prequels, which is sort of sad. He was the only spark of new intention that was not totally silly. And to think that characters like General Grievous would actually make me look back to the TPM villain with a little nostalgia.

Great points that I had never considered before. With the plot of the overall story getting more and more complicated, and the movies all exceeding two hours, George Lucas was left with no way to answer the "what if questions" that needed answering. I once saw a youtube video, ( I wish I could find it now) in which George Lucas, Rick MacCallum, and a few other people had just finished watching Episode 1. The atmosphere in that room was so uncomfortable. No, wait, here it is, another video by redlettermedia...

The important part starts at about 1:15 seconds into the video.

Honestly, I don't see why he had to keep it in a specific time format. The story should dictate the time of a movie, not the other way around. But even within the two hour timeframe, there is a lot of silliness in the Prequels that is just dead weight. I think you know what I mean, but I am mostly refering to Jar Jar Binks and the atrocious love story. If he had taken time from that crap, it could go to explaining important plot points, such as the roles of Trade Federation in TPM and Syfo-Dyas in the creation of the clone army. He also needed to flesh out important Jedi on the council, so the tragedy in Episode III would carry some weight. Why should we care for the Jedi order? Their role in the galaxy is apparently important, so knowing the people of the ruling council better would definitely be more important than a lot of the other stuff he wasted time on. But god forbid they take a little Gungan time to make characters like Mace Windu and Ki-Adi Mundi three dimensional. Heck, even Qui-Gon Jinn needed a lot more character development.

And yes, I have seen that video. Rick MacCallum's expression says it all.

It does sort of seem out of character for the emperor to gamble with his own life, but I've come to see him as something of a gambler. One instance in particular, where I know he gambled with his own life was at the beginning of Episode 3. One way or another, he was ultimately responsible for his own kidnapping. I'm certain Lord Sidious made it clear that Chancellor Palpetine was not to be killed by seperatists, and yet, he was stuck in the middle of an enormous battle. The ship he was aboard was scrapped and somehow was able to crash on the planet, with Palpatine's life intact. And yet, your point still stands, that the casual moviegoer wouldn't necessarily pick up on the fact that Palpatine was responsible for his own kidnapping, or the possibility that he threw his own lightsaber away.

I will gladly admit the gambling with his own life was not one of the stronger arguments, which is why it was in paranthesis and with "maybe" in my last post.
I realize, of course, that while the details regarding how his kidnapping was set up was vague to say the least, any possible version of it would include himself as the ultimately responsible. Yet, I think it could be argued that there is a difference between being on a huge ship in battle, probably heavily protected as Dooku's ship, and knowing the Republic would likely not fire on it while he was aboard (he'd act as human shield, ironically), and having Windu's lightsaber less than a foot from his face. He rolls away in the window opening, and I am fairly sure Windu would be faster running on his feet to catch up than than he was rolling. And he has just killed three Jedi, so he could very well have even a Jedi like Windu exploiting that opening, especiallly as Windu considered him to be "too dangerous to be left alive". It is not like Windu bothered to keep Jango alive for trial, either,
But still, this is obviously all speculation, but so are many arguments in this debate. It is not something that settles it. Like I said, from the in-movie implications, I am leaning in the other direction (by similar speculative arguments of motivations). You can just never prove anything, either way, by that type of reasoning on motive when this trilogy is so messy and incoherent on plot points and motivations, so I just tend to go by what I believe Lucas is trying to say in the commentary. It may be a bit of an Occam's Razor approach, or something similar to that, but I have nothing else. Unlike A LOT of fans, I am convinced that one can't really make some kind scientific research on the plot points and motivations to deduce the truth about this. I think that (all too frequent) attitude is vain, naive and a bit arrogant, to be honest. Real, strict, formal logical reasoning only works on some kind of logical system, and the Star Wars Prequels are far too irregular (on plot points and power ratings) to qualify. These movies are not even coherent enough to qualify for reasoning with the less rigid, colloquial meaning of the word "logic", in my opinion. Except by narrow-minded people, of course, who use strong words like "logic" to push what is really just their own speculation upon other. Oh, bloody hell, how I hate that kind. I am glad our discussion is on a much higher level than that. Those people were one of the reasons I quit Star Wars forums.

So far as Yoda and Palpatine are concerned, before the prequels, I never imagined them with lightsabers, and I wish it had remained that way. I considered them both far beyond carrying physical weapons, running around, and jumping all over the place. I liked it when their limits were undefined. They were useful for a few wise words, the half concealed threat of their considerable powers, and maybe a small demonstration here or there, but what we got were two very aged ultimate commandos. Listening to Yoda grunt, and snarl, and generally skitter around like pikachu was disappointing. I think George Lucas decided to make things the way they were in order to please the casual moviegoer, as well as himself. Before Episode 2, people who had always been die-hard Star Wars fans were die-hard Star Wars fans despite the fact that none of them had ever seen Yoda fight. Many die-hard fans loved it, but some hated it. I've come to accept it, but it will never impress me.

To be fair, it did impress me in the beginning, at least Yoda, but I used to like the Prequels more than I do now. Also, to be perfectly correct, I might point out that pulling off the Yoda duels like they did without it looking completely implausible is probably a technically impressive feat, of sorts.
That does not make it good storytelling. Nor does it mean that it creates an emotional connection. For a more mature audience, the duels in the Original Trilogy will always be stronger, especially once the novelty of the flashy stuff and bouncing around has worn off. Authenticity wins in the long run.

Yes, and that point has been well established. These last 3 movies sure don't make it easy to know what's going on.

Sorry if I became a tad repetitive there. I have a tendency to go too far explaining stuff that the other person has already picked up sometimes.

 

[Huttman]

I've been a strong supporter of Mr. Lucas all through the prequel years, but I can see why some people feel the way they do about him and what he has done to those movies and the original trilogy. I've enjoyed the prequels for what they are, a different take on the universe that he created with the talented people around him. Is he a stubborn man about getting his way? Sure, but that is not the worst quality a person can have when weighed with everything he has done. The scenes where everyone was quiet when he came into the room to overlook some preliminary ideas, well, it's George Lucas people. I would not be acting a fool if he walked in, especially if I was working for him at the time.
That being said, I've not met him (yet), so I'll just again say I accept the prequels and the Clone Wars for what they are, enjoyable romps in that galaxy far, far away. Maybe if I do ever meet him I'll pitch my better explosion for the Executor idea and new trilogies for the old republic, but the weak links in those movies can not come close to ruining them for me. If he ever did make more movies, or this rumored TV show, I'm sure he will take the lessons he learned from the prequels as C of K (hi) said. This has been an interesting thread/discussion, though, and got me to look at things with a little different perspective (although I still did not change my mind about the man).

Oh, a little edit here, I found out just last week he got married in 2006! I had no idea. Maybe that will soften him up a bit, huh? Or maybe, he's dooooomed.....

 

[Darth Angelus]

Huttman, he obviously has every right, legal and moral, to do as he pleases with his fictional universe. It is his life's work. I would never argue otherwise. Unlike many fans, I also regard his words to be the highest level of canon, unless of course it is utterly impossible.

On the other hand, how the more grown-up part of the audience feels about the Prequels is up to us. He has the right to do what he wants, but he can't expect the fans to be able untangle any incoherent mess that passes for a story and understand how he intended it.

It seems pretty clear he has no great sense of reasonable sizes of numbers (like the size of the clone army) which makes some stuff he'ds say weird. I mean, one does not even need university level knowledge on the subjects to know that not only does physics work differently in Star Wars. Mathematics very much does so, too.

 

[C Of K]

I think we pretty much agree on everything, or at least have very compatible views of Star Wars.

Definitely. It's a great universe, but there are many flaws in the creation of it.

I think Expanded Universe stuff you mention can be entertaining. They basically have to invent stuff and loosen the leach on their imagination a little bit in order to not get new Sith plots over and over. A lot of the times, these stories are better written than the Prequels.
But, of course, the far-fetched stuff must be disregarded. Basically, I think the Expanded Universe has to be seen as a continuity of its own. I think of Star Wars in layers of canon, and regard the G-canon (movies) as the core, which is canon to everything. The C-canon (novels, by other authors) is canon to itself (including other works belonging to the same continuity), but not to the G-canon. Which means, basically, that I disregard the Expanded Universe when it comes to this scene

The expanded universe can be very entertaining. I recently read the Revan novel, and finished the Fate of the Jedi series. Both were interesting, had their good spots, and their bad ones. I think the problem with carrying on the Star Wars universe at such a break-neck pace, so that fans barely have time to come up for air, is that their plot development almost always suffer, and their creativity definitely suffers. They have a difficult time escaping the Anakin Skywalker redemption story. Exar Kun, Ulique Quel Droma, Darth Revan, Kyp Durron, and Darth Caedus are all examples of "what if Darth Vader's story had turned out a little different?"

In the prequels, George Lucas did revisit certain small themes that were also in the original trilogy, but very rarely were those themes very important to the plot of the prequels. Anakin lost a hand at the end of his second movie, just as Luke did at the end of his second movie. While that can be sort of corny, it isn't all that important. The similarities between the cantina scene, and the bar scene in Episode 2 are also very minor. But the similarities between Darth Vader, and Darth Revan are quite large. The similarities between Darth Caedus and Darth Vader are disturbing. I avoided the entire Darth Caedus series for this very reason.

And then there is George Lucas' ability to come up with completely new technology, that expanded universe creators just don't do very well. It's not uncommon to see Star Destroyers, or Republic Gunships in a setting that takes place nearly 4,000 years before the rise of the empire. The Old Republic game that came out recently even features a Jango Fett looking Republic trooper in one of the trailers.

My problem with the expanded universe is that all too often they don't add to the Star Wars universe so much as they rehash what has already been established, and cook up slightly different scenarios just so it isn't a total carbon copy of what George Lucas did. If they would take time to foster real creativity, the way Timothy Zahn did with his first trilogy, they might be able to do something great. Zahn had no need for a sith lord who need redemption. Grand Admiral Thrawn was an incredibly intelligent villain. Joruus C'Baoth was an insane jedi clone, but even without him, the story was filled with greatness.

The Prequels indeed sort of work as an adventure story, but the plot and the mysteries...let us just say there are A LOT of threads hanging loose. The whole thing is developed further in the newly released novel Darth Plagueis (it was rather well-written), but as redlettermedia would say, we should not have to read some novel to fill in the gaps.

I'll have to pick up a copy of that book soon. I've heard of that book, but I put off getting it.

The Prequel characters are way underdeveloped. Most don't even have a personality, but even that is preferred over the annoying, whining brat Anakin. I must say I find it very hard to imagine the cool, awesome suited Vader in Episodes IV-VI as the same person as that silly boy. He was intended to be a good boy initially, and The Phantom Menace, for all its faults, at least got that across.

I always thought it was something of a mistake to ever show Anakin as a child. I've learned to accept George Lucas' decision, but from the moment I found out that child Anankin would star in Episode 1, I knew the jedi purge would suffer somehow. Sure enough, when it came time to show the fall of the jedi, it wasn't the man in the black suit doing the killing, and it was only glanced over. Before the prequels, I had always imagined Anakin and Obi Wan would have their fateful first showdown at the end of Episode 2, and Darth Vader would have been wreaking havoc for the entirety of Episode 3.

Honestly, I don't see why he had to keep it in a specific time format. The story should dictate the time of a movie, not the other way around. But even within the two hour timeframe, there is a lot of silliness in the Prequels that is just dead weight. I think you know what I mean, but I am mostly refering to Jar Jar Binks and the atrocious love story. If he had taken time from that crap, it could go to explaining important plot points, such as the roles of Trade Federation in TPM and Syfo-Dyas in the creation of the clone army. He also needed to flesh out important Jedi on the council, so the tragedy in Episode III would carry some weight. Why should we care for the Jedi order? Their role in the galaxy is apparently important, so knowing the people of the ruling council better would definitely be more important than a lot of the other stuff he wasted time on. But god forbid they take a little Gungan time to make characters like Mace Windu and Ki-Adi Mundi three dimensional. Heck, even Qui-Gon Jinn needed a lot more character development.

Well, the 2 hour thing isn't all that important, but I would hate to see Star Wars turn into Dune, if you know what I mean. As you say, there is a remedy for all that. Cut out some of the dead weight, or condense it. In the original trilogy, Han and Leia fell in love amidst blasters and lightsaber action. There was no playful romp through the meadow, and you never got to see them lay down to grab 40 winks. Sure, there was all that time between Episodes 4 and 5, but all that happened off screen. The prequel love story slowed down the pace horribly. As a character, Jar Jar was really good for one thing, helping to bring down the Republic. Because of that, I don't mind him being there. I just mind there being so much of him in the first movie. After that one, he stayed out of the way for the most part. I liked Qui Gon, but his character isn't so easy to define. I liked Kit Fisto, but only because he looks cool. Windu played the important role of being the jedi master who gets on your nerves the most. I thought Greivous was a great creation, but he needed a better name, and he was supposed to be a greater threat than he was portrayed as in the movie. To me, Dooku was pure gold, I thought it was brave of George Lucas to kill him in the opening 30 minutes of Episode 3. But your points are well taken. There were characters everywhere, special effects littered the screen, and the plot was so wishy washy that there was no room for proper character development that would perfectly compliment any great story.

But still, this is obviously all speculation, but so are many arguments in this debate. It is not something that settles it. Like I said, from the in-movie implications, I am leaning in the other direction (by similar speculative arguments of motivations). You can just never prove anything, either way, by that type of reasoning on motive when this trilogy is so messy and incoherent on plot points and motivations, so I just tend to go by what I believe Lucas is trying to say in the commentary. It may be a bit of an Occam's Razor approach, or something similar to that, but I have nothing else. Unlike A LOT of fans, I am convinced that one can't really make some kind scientific research on the plot points and motivations to deduce the truth about this. I think that (all too frequent) attitude is vain, naive and a bit arrogant, to be honest. Real, strict, formal logical reasoning only works on some kind of logical system, and the Star Wars Prequels are far too irregular (on plot points and power ratings) to qualify. These movies are not even coherent enough to qualify for reasoning with the less rigid, colloquial meaning of the word "logic", in my opinion. Except by narrow-minded people, of course, who use strong words like "logic" to push what is really just their own speculation upon other. Oh, bloody hell, how I hate that kind. I am glad our discussion is on a much higher level than that. Those people were one of the reasons I quit Star Wars forums.

Yeah, people often let their passion for the series get in the way. I try not to throw stones at George Lucas, but I also try not to excuse some of the things he did, that I believe should have and could have been done better. The sheer amount of money that he spent on making the prequels should demand a coherent story. The sheer amount of money he was destined to make from the prequels demands a coherent story even more. But I just think he tried to do too much with these movies. He had too many characters, too many special effects and computer graphics. He relied on lightsabers, flashy things and large battle scenes to carry him through it. Small details, and often enough, large details were pushed to the side. While there are a few fans here, I think most of us can agree that Star Wars is far from perfect.

To be fair, it did impress me in the beginning, at least Yoda, but I used to like the Prequels more than I do now. Also, to be perfectly correct, I might point out that pulling off the Yoda duels like they did without it looking completely implausible is probably a technically impressive feat, of sorts.

Technically, it is a wonder they were able to do it. But you would think the technical side of movie-making would be the real challenge these days. It's not. How often have we seen great special effects and computer generated characters like Optimus Prime, or the Hulk, star in movies that actually make no sense whatsoever? The written part of movie-making seems to be the most difficult these days.

Sorry if I became a tad repetitive there. I have a tendency to go too far explaining stuff that the other person has already picked up sometimes.

Oh no. Nothing wrong with repetition. Considering the probability that you've discussed these subjects numerous times with people who refuse to take any of it under consideration, repetition is the way to get your point across. No. What I meant was that I have come to agree with your standpoint. This stuff can't be proven unless George Lucas comes out and gives credit to it, and even then, his explanations might not make much sense. 6 movies is a very ambitious saga. The 30 years of time across which he told the story of that saga is even more ambitious. During that time he became something of a different person with different perspectives, technology advanced, allowing him to do more with his movies, and different ways to do them... I would probably like Star Wars more if the two trilogies weren't so interconnected. It's hard to say, or if the new trilogy had never happened. I don't know. I do know that I continue to revisit Star Wars from time to time, which I guess is a blessing.

I've been a strong supporter of Mr. Lucas all through the prequel years, but I can see why some people feel the way they do about him and what he has done to those movies and the original trilogy. I've enjoyed the prequels for what they are, a different take on the universe that he created with the talented people around him. Is he a stubborn man about getting his way? Sure, but that is not the worst quality a person can have when weighed with everything he has done. The scenes where everyone was quiet when he came into the room to overlook some preliminary ideas, well, it's George Lucas people. I would not be acting a fool if he walked in, especially if I was working for him at the time.

The talent he surrounds himself with is unbelievable. I wish I had half the talent some of those people have. George Lucas' own imagination and drive is amazing. I think if anything, his biggest flaw is his ability to overreach his limits. No matter how much money someone has, everyone has limits. George Lucas is deserving of praise for so many accomplishments, it's no wonder that his supporters can only be equaled by his detractors. He's done a lot of things, and the more work you publish, the more chances you give people to criticize your shortcomings. George Lucas sacrificed the validity of his plot for something he thought was more important. I'm not entirely sure what that something was, because I wasn't there while he was making those movies. The scene in the video that I posted, where he, Rick MacCallum, Ben Burt and maybe a few others were watching Episode 1 is proof that George Lucas has learned to live with his sacrifices. But that scene also proves that all in attendance realize that the movie had pretty big problems.

Maybe if I do ever meet him I'll pitch my better explosion for the Executor idea and new trilogies for the old republic, but the weak links in those movies can not come close to ruining them for me. If he ever did make more movies, or this rumored TV show, I'm sure he will take the lessons he learned from the prequels as C of K (hi) said. This has been an interesting thread/discussion, though, and got me to look at things with a little different perspective (although I still did not change my mind about the man).

Someone has to let him know about that explosion. I don't think he fixed it for the blue-ray release. It'll ahve to change before he comes to the 3-D version.

Oh, a little edit here, I found out just last week he got married in 2006! I had no idea. Maybe that will soften him up a bit, huh? Or maybe, he's dooooomed.....

Ah. Is marriage THAT bad? Lol

 

[Darth Angelus]

Definitely. It's a great universe, but there are many flaws in the creation of it.

Yes, in terms of imagination, I would say it comes very near fantanstic, and the sheer creativity behind it is stunning. If the storytelling part had gotten more work in the Prequels, I see no reason they could not have become classics themselves.

[quote/]The expanded universe can be very entertaining. I recently read the Revan novel, and finished the Fate of the Jedi series. Both were interesting, had their good spots, and their bad ones. I think the problem with carrying on the Star Wars universe at such a break-neck pace, so that fans barely have time to come up for air, is that their plot development almost always suffer, and their creativity definitely suffers. They have a difficult time escaping the Anakin Skywalker redemption story. Exar Kun, Ulique Quel Droma, Darth Revan, Kyp Durron, and Darth Caedus are all examples of "what if Darth Vader's story had turned out a little different?"[/quote]
I am currently reading Apocalypse (don't the titles need work, too?), the last novel of the Fate of the Jedi series. It has been ok overall, I think, but nothing I have been immensely excited about.

In the prequels, George Lucas did revisit certain small themes that were also in the original trilogy, but very rarely were those themes very important to the plot of the prequels. Anakin lost a hand at the end of his second movie, just as Luke did at the end of his second movie. While that can be sort of corny, it isn't all that important. The similarities between the cantina scene, and the bar scene in Episode 2 are also very minor. But the similarities between Darth Vader, and Darth Revan are quite large. The similarities between Darth Caedus and Darth Vader are disturbing. I avoided the entire Darth Caedus series for this very reason.

Lucas has admitted he has mad small things similar on purpose, "so that they rhymed" in his own words, as shown in redlettermedia's videos. That is small enough to not take up too much room, so it does not bother me all that much. It is not what I'd call one of the greatest Prequel flaws, even though it is a bit disturbing to the extent in which it is a symptom of the fact that he relies a bit too much Original Trilogy nostalgia.
I read the Darth Ceadus series, and I thought it was well-written. There wasn't anything really new in it, true, but they did step away from the overused redemption theme.

And then there is George Lucas' ability to come up with completely new technology, that expanded universe creators just don't do very well. It's not uncommon to see Star Destroyers, or Republic Gunships in a setting that takes place nearly 4,000 years before the rise of the empire. The Old Republic game that came out recently even features a Jango Fett looking Republic trooper in one of the trailers.

My problem with the expanded universe is that all too often they don't add to the Star Wars universe so much as they rehash what has already been established, and cook up slightly different scenarios just so it isn't a total carbon copy of what George Lucas did. If they would take time to foster real creativity, the way Timothy Zahn did with his first trilogy, they might be able to do something great. Zahn had no need for a sith lord who need redemption. Grand Admiral Thrawn was an incredibly intelligent villain. Joruus C'Baoth was an insane jedi clone, but even without him, the story was filled with greatness.

Agreed, although I admit there are limits to what I could invent, too, when it comes to new technology that is not too far-fetched. Still, they could definitely have made more new ship designs instead of using Star Destroyers.
Grand Admiral Thrawn may very well be the best written Expanded Universe character ever. Such complexity. And the way he was described in Outbound Flight was nothing less than brilliant, too.

I'll have to pick up a copy of that book soon. I've heard of that book, but I put off getting it.

It is not like it can fix the Prequels, but it does smooth out the flaws a little bit. It was a great work, that way, in my opinion.

I always thought it was something of a mistake to ever show Anakin as a child. I've learned to accept George Lucas' decision, but from the moment I found out that child Anankin would star in Episode 1, I knew the jedi purge would suffer somehow.

True, the idea of including a child Anakin was doubtful to say the least, but I was mostly referring to him in Episodes II and III. In Episode I, he at least got the message across that Anakin was a good person to begin with. However, in Episode II, he had already changed personality A LOT off-screen, so we never really see that development.

Sure enough, when it came time to show the fall of the jedi, it wasn't the man in the black suit doing the killing, and it was only glanced over. Before the prequels, I had always imagined Anakin and Obi Wan would have their fateful first showdown at the end of Episode 2, and Darth Vader would have been wreaking havoc for the entirety of Episode 3.

I am not sure of the exact order I imagined it. I know most fans imagine it like you did, though.
However, in a way, it makes sense for Obi-Wan to duel him when he has already done a bit of damage.

Well, the 2 hour thing isn't all that important, but I would hate to see Star Wars turn into Dune, if you know what I mean. As you say, there is a remedy for all that. Cut out some of the dead weight, or condense it. In the original trilogy, Han and Leia fell in love amidst blasters and lightsaber action. There was no playful romp through the meadow, and you never got to see them lay down to grab 40 winks. Sure, there was all that time between Episodes 4 and 5, but all that happened off screen. The prequel love story slowed down the pace horribly. As a character, Jar Jar was really good for one thing, helping to bring down the Republic. Because of that, I don't mind him being there. I just mind there being so much of him in the first movie. After that one, he stayed out of the way for the most part. I liked Qui Gon, but his character isn't so easy to define. I liked Kit Fisto, but only because he looks cool. Windu played the important role of being the jedi master who gets on your nerves the most. I thought Greivous was a great creation, but he needed a better name, and he was supposed to be a greater threat than he was portrayed as in the movie. To me, Dooku was pure gold, I thought it was brave of George Lucas to kill him in the opening 30 minutes of Episode 3. But your points are well taken. There were characters everywhere, special effects littered the screen, and the plot was so wishy washy that there was no room for proper character development that would perfectly compliment any great story.

I can't quite agree with you on Grievous. He looked cool in the cartoon, but there was something that felt fake to me about him in the movie.
Count Dooku's character was largely saved by brilliant (if a bit much like Saruman) acting, but otherwise, he was not well-delfined. The same went for Qui-Gon, really. Character concept was weak, but the actor is one of the better one can find.
About Samuel L. Jackson, I think redlettermedia is right there, too. Mostly, anyway (not about the diversity quota having already been met, because it Star Wars is still far too much about white men in key roles, when they are human). He can make a really powerful performance if put in the right role (one with intensity), but a Jedi Master was not ideal. I don't think he sucked, though. He made Obi-Wan and Anakin look a bit meek, to me, and that was not all that great. As actors, they just don't seem to carry the same forceful personality.
About the character himself, many fans would say Windu was superfluous, a paper hero, etc. I see where they are coming from, but I don't quite agree. The Jedi order was in its "golden age" (Lucas's words) in the Prequels, and the Jedi were "in their prime". I think the Prequels needed a Jedi Master to embody this power of the Jedi order, so to speak. Many fans will respond to that by pointing to Yoda, but that cannot work like that dramatically when Yoda survives the purge. A Jedi Master of (at least almost) Yoda's stature that could fall at the same time as the order was definitely something that could raise the dramatic stakes of the purge. The guy whose death spelled the doom for the order, at least in a dramatic, story-telling mechanical sense. In theory, that is definitely a character concept that had more legitimate reason to exist in the Prequels than most.
Mace Windu actually did serve this role to an extent, but he fell flat due to limited characterization and screen time. That concept needed to be built up, or there was no reason to include him. As it is, I am not sure where Lucas wanted to go with him. He is, like, really powerful but little used. His most defining attribute that people will remember is the actor who portrayed him, which is not a very good sign.
Now, the circumstances were less than ideal to build drama around him to begin with, due to the fact that the Original Trilogy was already released and that he was (just like almost every Jedi in the Prequels) doomed by canon. His death was never going to be a surprise to someone familiar with the saga, just like no one with the slightest familiarity with our culture and its common knowledge was ever going to be surprised by the ship sinking in Titanic. However, I still think that he should be written in a way that people who watched Star Wars in chronological order would actually get involved in the character, making it similar to Obi-Wan's death in Episode IV.
So no, he was not a truly superfluous character concept, under ideal circumstances. Far from it, he had potential with good writing. He was never going to be a Darth Vader to fans, but he could have been much better. It is just that underdevelopment (and possibly miscast) reduced him to that.

Yeah, people often let their passion for the series get in the way. I try not to throw stones at George Lucas, but I also try not to excuse some of the things he did, that I believe should have and could have been done better. The sheer amount of money that he spent on making the prequels should demand a coherent story. The sheer amount of money he was destined to make from the prequels demands a coherent story even more. But I just think he tried to do too much with these movies. He had too many characters, too many special effects and computer graphics. He relied on lightsabers, flashy things and large battle scenes to carry him through it. Small details, and often enough, large details were pushed to the side. While there are a few fans here, I think most of us can agree that Star Wars is far from perfect.

Agreed, many fans do indeed get emotionally carried away. Logical fallacies are far too numerous to count, as a result. I took it too seriously, too.

Technically, it is a wonder they were able to do it. But you would think the technical side of movie-making would be the real challenge these days. It's not. How often have we seen great special effects and computer generated characters like Optimus Prime, or the Hulk, star in movies that actually make no sense whatsoever? The written part of movie-making seems to be the most difficult these days.

Agreed. The people doing the computer animations still did a great job, though. Of course, you would not get a job on any Hollywood studio without great technical proficiency.

Oh no. Nothing wrong with repetition. Considering the probability that you've discussed these subjects numerous times with people who refuse to take any of it under consideration, repetition is the way to get your point across. No. What I meant was that I have come to agree with your standpoint. This stuff can't be proven unless George Lucas comes out and gives credit to it, and even then, his explanations might not make much sense.

Yes, I have discussed this quite a bit. I am glad you see what I am trying to say.

6 movies is a very ambitious saga. The 30 years of time across which he told the story of that saga is even more ambitious. During that time he became something of a different person with different perspectives, technology advanced, allowing him to do more with his movies, and different ways to do them... I would probably like Star Wars more if the two trilogies weren't so interconnected. It's hard to say, or if the new trilogy had never happened. I don't know. I do know that I continue to revisit Star Wars from time to time, which I guess is a blessing.

Indeed, both his personality and the technology for moviemaking will have changed greatly in this timespan, setting the stage for a different tone.

The talent he surrounds himself with is unbelievable. I wish I had half the talent some of those people have. George Lucas' own imagination and drive is amazing. I think if anything, his biggest flaw is his ability to overreach his limits. No matter how much money someone has, everyone has limits. George Lucas is deserving of praise for so many accomplishments, it's no wonder that his supporters can only be equaled by his detractors. He's done a lot of things, and the more work you publish, the more chances you give people to criticize your shortcomings. George Lucas sacrificed the validity of his plot for something he thought was more important. I'm not entirely sure what that something was, because I wasn't there while he was making those movies. The scene in the video that I posted, where he, Rick MacCallum, Ben Burt and maybe a few others were watching Episode 1 is proof that George Lucas has learned to live with his sacrifices. But that scene also proves that all in attendance realize that the movie had pretty big problems.

Although that is mistakenly quoted as coming from me, I do agree with your response. His imagination is fantastic. His ability to build a coherent plot is, sadly, not on the same level.