ROTS Palpatine vs Jedi posse

[WebLurker]

Which is odd because the Jedi seemed in denial that Dooku would even murder someone in AOTC much less be a Sith Lord. It also is interesting that the Jedi were either slow in their pursuit of leads on the other Sith Lord after Maul's death, or Palpatine had been leading them on dead ends for the last ten years.

I don't know what the canon explanation is, but the non-canon Legends books did comment that the Jedi Council was denying what Dooku had become because they didn't want to believe he had fallen so far.

(Incidentally, the Clone Wars: Lost Missions episodes establish that Dooku was working with Sidious before The Phantom Menace happened.)

 

[Reverend]

(Incidentally, the Clone Wars: Lost Missions episodes establish that Dooku was working with Sidious before The Phantom Menace happened.)

Was it really that precise? I mean I'm not questioning the idea that Sidious could have been making overtures to Dooku as an ally/asset while he still had Maul as an apprentice (though I think also having Plagueis still kicking around at the same time to be pushing it.) Unless I'm misremembering I just don't recall that those episodes specified the timing of those events beyond "10 years before the clone wars" which would certainly put it right around that time, but perhaps not necessarily before.

 

[Ithekro]

The main reason suggested as to why the Clones were able to kill here Jedi commander and generals with relative ease was that the Clones knew their Jedi leaders very well, and the clones were just following orders. The Jedi reactions are based partly on feeling of intent against them. The clones had no intent, just an order to kill the Jedi to be carried out like any other order.

Deeper down, Order 66 brands the Jedi as traitors to the Republic. But some clones went on to show some slight kindness to their generals, attempt to make their deaths as painless as possible.

 

[WebLurker]

Was it really that precise? I mean I'm not questioning the idea that Sidious could have been making overtures to Dooku as an ally/asset while he still had Maul as an apprentice (though I think also having Plagueis still kicking around at the same time to be pushing it.) Unless I'm misremembering I just don't recall that those episodes specified the timing of those events beyond "10 years before the clone wars" which would certainly put it right around that time, but perhaps not necessarily before.

Dooku worked with Sidious to get rid of Sifo-Dyas and used a secret Republic mission as the cover to have the deed done. The "official" version of the events (which the Sith were careful to keep their involvement out of) were sealed under Chancellor Valorum's orders. Valorum was remove from that office in Phantom Menace. Ergo, Dooku was an ally of Sidious's before the movie.

 

[fireproof78]

Dooku worked with Sidious to get rid of Sifo-Dyas and used a secret Republic mission as the cover to have the deed done. The "official" version of the events (which the Sith were careful to keep their involvement out of) were sealed under Chancellor Valorum's orders. Valorum was remove from that office in Phantom Menace. Ergo, Dooku was an ally of Sidious's before the movie.

Which would have been a whole lot more interesting to have in the film rather than just as an addendum. It would have been interesting to have the Jedi off on a wild Bantha chase, thinking that Dooku was the Sith Master they had been seeking the whole time. Thus, the expectation that if Dooku dies, the war would end because the machinations of the Sith would fall apart, failing to see the other master. Yes, I know that's the overall implication of ROTS, but I still would love more meat to that story. The fact that Sifo-Dyas was never really explained beyond his name and death is a great unanswered question in the Star Wars lore.

 

[LJones41]

Which would have been a whole lot more interesting to have in the film rather than just as an addendum. It would have been interesting to have the Jedi off on a wild Bantha chase, thinking that Dooku was the Sith Master they had been seeking the whole time. Thus, the expectation that if Dooku dies, the war would end because the machinations of the Sith would fall apart, failing to see the other master. Yes, I know that's the overall implication of ROTS, but I still would love more meat to that story. The fact that Sifo-Dyas was never really explained beyond his name and death is a great unanswered question in the Star Wars lore.

Sifo-Dyas' actions and intent were explained in an episode of "The Clone Wars". Lucas didn't explain everything in his movies - and I'm talking about ALL SIX MOVIES. Which is why he had novels and shows like "The Clone Wars" to fill in the gaps. Heck, it took him nearly 30 years to explain what led Leia and Han to become seriously attracted to each other before the events of "The Empire Strikes Back". Why is it that so many STAR WARS fans complain about this situation with the Prequel movies, but fail to acknowledge this same situation with the Original movies?

 

[fireproof78]

Sifo-Dyas' actions and intent were explained in an episode of "The Clone Wars". Lucas didn't explain everything in his movies - and I'm talking about ALL SIX MOVIES. Which is why he had novels and shows like "The Clone Wars" to fill in the gaps. Heck, it took him nearly 30 years to explain what led Leia and Han to become seriously attracted to each other before the events of "The Empire Strikes Back". Why is it that so many STAR WARS fans complain about this situation with the Prequel movies, but fail to acknowledge this same situation with the Original movies?

For me, it's because the holes feel less obvious in the OT than in the PT. In the OT, I don't have a problem with Han and Leia because it feels natural, with the bad boy and the princess ending up together. It's tropey as I'll get out but it flows very well.

Versus the PT when all the publicity was that things like "Force Ghost, Sifo-Dyas" etc. would be explained. The holes don't have a simple explanation that flow from the narrative to me.

The situations are not identical.

 

[Set Harth]

Heck, it took him nearly 30 years to explain what led Leia and Han to become seriously attracted to each other before the events of "The Empire Strikes Back".

Say what?

 

[Venardhi]

There is a big difference between not explaining everything in the story and not explaining core elements of the plot.

We don't need to know all the details of their world. Not over-explaining the universe is part of what makes the GFFA so appealing. We do need to know about the key characters (to the extent it is relevant) and actions that set the plot in motion and drive it. "The Clone Wars" and "the Kessel Run" are asides that inform us that the world they're in is expansive and has history. "Sifo-Dyas" and a "diminished" access to the Force are lazy handwaves to dismiss things that are extremely relevant to the plot because Lucas was too lazy to develop one that actually made sense.

 

[JD]

Sifo-Dyas' actions and intent were explained in an episode of "The Clone Wars". Lucas didn't explain everything in his movies - and I'm talking about ALL SIX MOVIES. Which is why he had novels and shows like "The Clone Wars" to fill in the gaps. Heck, it took him nearly 30 years to explain what led Leia and Han to become seriously attracted to each other before the events of "The Empire Strikes Back". Why is it that so many STAR WARS fans complain about this situation with the Prequel movies, but fail to acknowledge this same situation with the Original movies?

The difference, at least to me, is that the stuff in the OT is just little bits that are pretty easy to figure out logically and aren't specifically set up as mysteries, the PT on the other hand sets up specific mysteries, like Sifo-Dyas, as major plot points, but then never resolves them. It would have been like if they never explained who "the other" was after TESB.

 

[fireproof78]

The difference, at least to me, is that the stuff in the OT is just little bits that are pretty easy to figure out logically and aren't specifically set up as mysteries, the PT on the other hand sets up specific mysteries, like Sifo-Dyas, as major plot points, but then never resolves them. It would have been like if they never explained who "the other" was after TESB.

Exactly so. The situations are not identical.

I think, for me, it boils down down to in the Prequel Trilogy is everything is in service to the effects, and visual storytelling. Which means that story points that cannot be easily explained (Who Sifo-Dyas was and why did he order the Clone Army? among others) start to stack up and distract from the overall tale.

It isn't the same for everyone, and I certainly enjoy films that have their fair share of plot holes, but PT always stood out to be as so inexplicable as to be frustrating and not enjoyable.

 

[LJones41]

For me, it's because the holes feel less obvious in the OT than in the PT. In the OT, I don't have a problem with Han and Leia because it feels natural, with the bad boy and the princess ending up together.

It felt natural? Perhaps to you. When I first saw "TESB", I was confused. I didn't recall Leia and Han harboring any true romantic feelings in "ANH" and I wondered the hell happened that led them to exchanging longing glances at the beginning of the 1980 film. To this day, I'm still shaking my head over Luke's Jedi training between "TESB" and "ROTJ". I'm still disappointed that Lucas never bothered to show Leia expressing any grief over Alderaan's destruction. I don't regard the lack of open grief as a sign of strength. I regard it as some masculine myth of which society is expected to approve. I'm still wondering why Anakin had lingered on Mustafar after killing the Separatist leaders in "ROTS". And I have a slew of questions regarding "TFA".

A plot hole is a plot hole. I'm not going to dismiss some of them, due to a possibility that they might not be "obvious".


As for the Palpatine v. Jedi posse scene . . . frankly, I thought it was clumsily executed. It felt rushed. However, I had no problems with Palpatine taking out those three Jedi so quickly, especially since he was supposed to be very powerful with the Force.

 

[fireproof78]

It felt natural? Perhaps to you. When I first saw "TESB", I was confused. I didn't recall Leia and Han harboring any true romantic feelings in "ANH" and I wondered the hell happened that led them to exchanging longing glances at the beginning of the 1980 film. To this day, I'm still shaking my head over Luke's Jedi training between "TESB" and "ROTJ". I'm still disappointed that Lucas never bothered to show Leia expressing any grief over Alderaan's destruction. I don't regard the lack of open grief as a sign of strength. I regard it as some masculine myth of which society is expected to approve. I'm still wondering why Anakin had lingered on Mustafar after killing the Separatist leaders in "ROTS". And I have a slew of questions regarding "TFA".

A plot hole is a plot hole. I'm not going to dismiss some of them, due to a possibility that they might not be "obvious".


As for the Palpatine v. Jedi posse scene . . . frankly, I thought it was clumsily executed. It felt rushed. However, I had no problems with Palpatine taking out those three Jedi so quickly, especially since he was supposed to be very powerful with the Force.

Those are all legitimate points and questions. Some don't bother me because I do what a visual effects friend of mine calls "bringing your own concrete" for those plot holes.

Some work, and some don't. The PT, in general, tends to need more than I have.

As for Han and Leia, I wish I could explain it, but I really can't for me. I follow it from Han's off hand comment to Luke, to Han's wink towards Leia at the end of ANH, and then their tension as the beginning of ESB feels very much like they've established a history in the three years since ANH. I guess I give it the benefit of the doubt for that time.

 

[Reverend]

Generally speaking, people in movies have been known to fall in love in a matter of days. Han and Leia had *three years* of what I can only imagine was solid, 24/7 bickering. It's a wonder it took them as long as it did.

What we saw in ESB wasn't the beginning of a romance, but the culmination of one as they finally admit it to themselves and each other.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Which means that story points that cannot be easily explained (Who Sifo-Dyas was and why did he order the Clone Army? among others) start to stack up and distract from the overall tale.

I always thought there never actually WAS a Sifo-Dyas and it was a false identity used by Dooku (or perhaps even Sidious) to hide the true origin of the clone army.

 

[fireproof78]

I always thought there never actually WAS a Sifo-Dyas and it was a false identity used by Dooku (or perhaps even Sidious) to hide the true origin of the clone army.

Except for Obi-Wan, Mace and Yoda acting he was a Jedi Master, who was at least known to the Jedi. I mean, I know Sidious is one of the top Sith Lords ever, but impersonating a Jedi Master?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I know Sidious is one of the top Sith Lords ever, but impersonating a Jedi Master?

Compared to some of the things we see Sidious do, that would be small potatoes indeed.

 

[Set Harth]

I always thought there never actually WAS a Sifo-Dyas and it was a false identity used by Dooku (or perhaps even Sidious) to hide the true origin of the clone army.

It's fairly clear from AOTC that Sifo-Dyas was supposed to have been a real Jedi, who was known to have died. We find out a little bit more about him in the final season of The Clone Wars.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

We find out a little bit more about him in the final season of The Clone Wars.

Oh. Well I've never seen that show so I'm just going by what we see in the films.

My suspicion was also stoked by the similarity in names of "Sifo-Dyas" and "Sidious".

 

[fireproof78]

Compared to some of the things we see Sidious do, that would be small potatoes indeed.

I suppose so, but it makes him a rather impossible villain to defeat and the Jedi all the more desperate and incompetent than before. But, it fits with Lucas' overall theme of little guy against the big guy. But, now the odds feel more stacked against the Jedi, who are seemingly blind to the threat. Which, unfortunately, does not make them compelling protagonists, if that makes sense.

But, I think that is mixing some behind the scenes information (Sido-Dias was the original name in one draft) and what ended up on screen. Which, lends itself to more confusion, unfortunately.