Clone Wars S2

[Set Harth]

Qui-Gon's view of the "living Force" seemed to be a better mindset.

Qui-Gon is definitely a rebel of sorts, but it's only certain EU material which seems to imply that his "view of the living Force" is to be strongly contrasted with that of the other Jedi. This apparently results from a line in TPM which has been blown out of proportion. In the TPM novel Qui-Gon's internal POV describes adherence to the living Force as "a Jedi's focus" rather than something only specifically true for himself.

I never got the sense that they knew much about the history of the Republic, but the timing in the OT was different -the Jedi and the Force were forgotten legends, etc. That doesn't synch up with it all going wrong a mere 20 years before.

However, Luke being around 20 years old in ANH doesn't synch up with it having taken place much earlier.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Qui-Gon's view of the "living Force" seemed to be a better mindset.

Qui-Gon is definitely a rebel of sorts, but it's only certain EU material which seems to imply that his "view of the living Force" is to be strongly contrasted with that of the other Jedi. This apparently results from a line in TPM which has been blown out of proportion. In the TPM novel Qui-Gon's internal POV describes adherence to the living Force as "a Jedi's focus" rather than something only specifically true for himself.

It seemed quite clear to me from TPM that Qui-Gon's perspective was strongly contrasted with the Jedi -- Obi-Wan's line about Qui-Gon not yet being on the Council because of his views provides a confirmation of the schism. Qui-Gon quite obviously operates differently from the Council, and his comment about "The Living Force" is the most explicit explanation for his difference of philosophy.

For the record, I've not read the TPM novel and almost no EU PT material, outside of Labyrinth of Evil.

 

[Set Harth]

It seemed quite clear to me from TPM that Qui-Gon's perspective was strongly contrasted with the Jedi -- Obi-Wan's line about Qui-Gon not yet being on the Council because of his views provides a confirmation of the schism.

Obi-Wan's line indicates that Qui-Gon is not on the Council due to his having broken Jedi rules and defied the Council, not necessarily because of a difference in philosophy regarding the living Force.

Qui-Gon quite obviously operates differently from the Council, and his comment about "The Living Force" is the most explicit explanation for his difference of philosophy.

Except that particular line does not actually express that he has a difference of philosophy with Yoda or the Council. He merely clarifies the Jedi position of "balance" ( for lack of a better word ) between the living and unifying aspects of the Force. This line has been widely misinterpreted to imply a divison between Qui-Gon and Yoda on the issue of the living Force, but such a division does not actually exist in the film, while it seems to be contradicted by the novelization.

There's also this, which is probably from the ROTS junior novel:

Calm, centered, free - for the moment - of sorrow and despair, resting in the living Force as he had been trained to do, Obi-Wan Kenobi looked at his former friend and student, and did the unexpected.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Obi-Wan's line indicates that Qui-Gon is not on the Council due to his having broken Jedi rules and defied the Council, not necessarily because of a difference in philosophy regarding the living Force.

Except that particular line does not actually express that he has a difference of philosophy with Yoda or the Council. He merely clarifies the Jedi position of "balance" ( for lack of a better word ) between the living and unifying aspects of the Force. This line has been widely misinterpreted to imply a divison between Qui-Gon and Yoda on the issue of the living Force, but such a division does not actually exist in the film, while it seems to be contradicted by the novelization

Misinterpreted according to whom? According to which authority within the movies? According to you?

I've always seen Qui-Gon's defiance of the Council quite clearly as a product of his difference of philosophy. And that's simply a different interpretation than the one you advocate -- both of which are entirely supported within the films, I might add.

But to reiterate my interpretation one last time: Qui-Gon can be seen to represent a very different, less dogmatic approach to the Jedi Code -- as evidenced by his actions, his comments to Obi-Wan and by Obi-Wan's comments to him. Why would he act in such a way? Because he believes in a different philosophy -- or, at the very least, a different emphasis within the fundamental Jedi philosophy. The two philosophies aren't mutually exclusive, but it's my view that there's a clear distinction between Qui-Gon's philosophical perspective and that of the Council, IMO.

 

[fett51]

Since the latter allows Anakin to be heroic, sympathetic and intelligent, it's definitely the better way to go, although it's a radical departure from everything I've assumed about the PT timeframe till now. The most important element in any story is that the audience must sympathize with the main character - if you can't do that, the audience is gone. So making Anakin look good or at least not like a total loser is far more important than making the Jedi and the Republic look good.

We know from Empire Strikes Back he wants to wrest control of the galaxy from the Emperor - but not to return it to democracy. He has to genuinely believe autocracy with him in charge is the best thing for the galaxy, to the point where he's willing to blow up planets to crush dissent. I don't think there's a way you can get him to that point sympathetically, he has to break at some point.

To me, it says he's not attached to any of them as much as he's attached to his need for an adrenaline rush. He'll risk others to save Ahsoka and risk Ahoska to save others, so Ahsoka or the others isn't who he's concerned with at all.

Well, that's exactly it. He doesn't really care about anyone, all he really cares about is his perception of loss, and he'll risk anything to avoid feeling like a failure as he did when his mother died. Risking other people's lives for an adrenaline rush is equally crazy, either way he's risking lives because he can't get over his psychological issues rather than on any rational basis.

It occurs that avoiding feeling like a failure ties into his hubris, which would likely be a product of hearing "YOU'RE THE CHOSEN ONE" half his life. Nice self-fulfilling prophecy there.

On the assumption that Star Wars species essentially mirror human nature, the Jedi are asking their people to act in opposition to their nature, to feel equally compassionate towards their comrades in arms and the enemy, for instance.

Which is why they have to get you as a kid, presumably. I was addressing that I don't think he actually cares about anyone close to him, rather than a lack of compassion in general. I don't think caring and attachment are mutually exclusive, one can feel both, but I don't think Anakin does. After becoming Vader, the only person he shows any difficulty killing is his son, and yet he didn't have any problem lopping Luke's hand off and screwing over his friends to try to win him over, just as he didn't choking Padme and ruining her life to keep her around. It's always about him.

I'd like to see the Jedi comment on how parallel their own situation is to the clones - of course that leads to them realizing just how unfairly they've been treated, too. They were taken away from their families when they were small children and brainwashed to believe that this imposed lifestyle is the best for them. Anakin shouldn't be the only one rebelling at that.

Anakin is one of the presumably few Jedi who did join by choice, granted he was 9 at the time. I'd imagine somewhere along the line of learning what dark force users are capable of, most Jedi understand the fear that causes them to be placed in the situation they are, even if they wish the policy were not so extreme. Still they are free to leave the order if they choose (or at least Dooku was) and going through Jedi training obviously doesn't quash dissent, so I imagine they don't feel completely caged. The clones don't seem to be afforded any of those opportunities, indeed the Kaminoans will kill them if they seem deficient in any way.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

However, Luke being around 20 years old in ANH doesn't synch up with it having taken place much earlier.

I think the notion of Luke (and later Leia) being born around the time the Republic fell was a later idea because I don't recall wondering about the timing when I saw ESB. I assumed Luke was born years after Vader became Vader - and no, I didn't dwell much on the logistics.

Back then I thought whatever big catastrophe happened, it must have been about 30 or 40 years in the past. Obi-Wan appeared to be in the 60s, and I assumed he and Vader (didn't know Anakin's name till ROTJ) were about the same age, and that they were in their 20s when it happened. Presumably Obi-Wan spent a lot of time fighting the Empire before being given Vader's kid to hide. Maybe he kidnapped Luke from Vader and his Sith wife. I think back then there were no rules about how many Sith there could be, and no reason to assume whose side Luke's mom might have been on.

We know from Empire Strikes Back he wants to wrest control of the galaxy from the Emperor - but not to return it to democracy. He has to genuinely believe autocracy with him in charge is the best thing for the galaxy, to the point where he's willing to blow up planets to crush dissent. I don't think there's a way you can get him to that point sympathetically, he has to break at some point.

You can keep him quasi-sympathetic by portraying the Republic as hopelessly corrupt, and kowtowing to local despots just to keep their planets within the Republic's political structure, caring nothing for true democracy, while the whole system careens chaotically around, causing big wars and little ones throughout the galaxy. That sort of Republic would have nothing going for it, and a despotic regime that at least could keep the peace would be preferable.

The point is, somebody has to get thrown under the bus. Either Anakin is psycho, or the Jedi are idiots with useless rules and the Republic is a corrupt mess.

He doesn't really care about anyone, all he really cares about is his perception of loss, and he'll risk anything to avoid feeling like a failure as he did when his mother died.

I certainly got that sense in the PT, but in Clone Wars, he's being portrayed as someone who genuinely does care about people. It's a difference in how the character is being performed, rather than written. He comes off as too psychologically healthy now to be incapable of caring about other people in a genuine fashion. If they really wanted to continue with the psychological angle, they'd have to go right back to how Hayden Christensen performed the character, which definitely drove home the message that he's a selfish, emotionally stunted horror show of a person (which inevitably will alienate the audience, but it's one or the other).

Which is why they have to get you as a kid, presumably.

I don't think that would work - it doesn't really work perfectly even with the Jedi who are raised from childhood with those beliefs. Attachment to your tribe is hard-wired into a social species, not learned behavior. It's the same reason you can't train your cat to care about anyone else but your dog will slobber all over you. Humans are more like dogs and not so much like cats due to our evolution in small tribes. The Jedi are fighting evolution.

Anakin is one of the presumably few Jedi who did join by choice, granted he was 9 at the time.

A child that age isn't capable of making an informed choice. I'd say he'd have to be 16 or 17 at a minimum, about the same age as people are accepted into the military (and that's exactly the reason for the military's minimum age).

 

[fett51]

The point is, somebody has to get thrown under the bus. Either Anakin is psycho, or the Jedi are idiots with useless rules and the Republic is a corrupt mess.

Or both. As screwed up as the Republic is, replacing it with the Empire was clearly not the right decision, tearing it out and replacing it with a new system that actually functions democratically is. You can make Anakin sympathetic in that he's so incredibly frustrated with the Republic's idleness he just wants government what works, but he's still making the wrong choice in how to respond to that. Same thing with the Jedi, the solution to fixing their flaws is to alter the way they do things, not mass-murder them and let Palpatine run the galaxy unchecked. Something has to push him over the edge and make him think both the Jedi Code and democracy are outright inferior to dictatorship and brutality.

I certainly got that sense in the PT, but in Clone Wars, he's being portrayed as someone who genuinely does care about people. It's a difference in how the character is being performed, rather than written. He comes off as too psychologically healthy now to be incapable of caring about other people in a genuine fashion. If they really wanted to continue with the psychological angle, they'd have to go right back to how Hayden Christensen performed the character, which definitely drove home the message that he's a selfish, emotionally stunted horror show of a person (which inevitably will alienate the audience, but it's one or the other).

Not necessarily. The scary thing about IRL psychos is you can't tell who they are just by talking to them for a few minutes. Anakin may not psychologically give a crap about anyone else, but he still thinks he's righteous and will act accordingly. When he's put in situations that involve threats to his attachments, he still charges off hellbent on protecting them and displays a total disregard for anyone else or his supposed morals in doing so. The framing is different though - in the PT that behavior usually involves him doing messed up things pretty much every time, in CW it usually involves him fighting the bad guys, maybe with a side of prisoner torture.

I don't think that would work - it doesn't really work perfectly even with the Jedi who are raised from childhood with those beliefs. Attachment to your tribe is hard-wired into a social species, not learned behavior. It's the same reason you can't train your cat to care about anyone else but your dog will slobber all over you. Humans are more like dogs and not so much like cats due to our evolution in small tribes. The Jedi are fighting evolution.

One of the perks of human nature is being able to overcome our instincts. The most blatant example is monogamy - we are definitely not a monogamous species by nature, but many people choose to be monogamous, usually because of religious or cultural factors that are a lot less intense than being stuck in Jedi boarding school one's entire life. More appropriately, Buddhist (who originated the non-attachment philosophy) monasteries will take kids in and teach them this stuff from childhood as part of monk training. I'm sure it doesn't work on every kid, but it seems to work on most.

A child that age isn't capable of making an informed choice. I'd say he'd have to be 16 or 17 at a minimum, about the same age as people are accepted into the military (and that's exactly the reason for the military's minimum age).

No, but his mother was willing to give him up and I doubt he thinks he would have been better off stuck on Tatooine podracing his whole life. In his case joining the order was probably his best option so I doubt he'd be resentful of that aspect of his treatment by the Jedi.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

You can make Anakin sympathetic in that he's so incredibly frustrated with the Republic's idleness he just wants government what works, but he's still making the wrong choice in how to respond to that.

That's what I want to see. The CW Anakin can be a psycho but not an off-putting one. It was the whining and the punk-ness that put the audience off. A "healthy" psycho would come off much better - maybe he was damaged by his childhood but it's not in the audience's face all the time to a hugely annoying degree,.

Anakin needs to be like Dexter Morgan - he can be a mess, but shouldn't be presented in a way that seems like a pathetic bid for our sympathy. Instead, just present him on his own terms and let the audience decide whether we sympathize or like the guy.

Don't try to manipulate us because it will have the opposite effect - we'll reject him outright. Blatant attempts at manipulation raise people's hackles. That's what happened with the PT Anakin. Instead, give us someone who is funny, fun, seems to be having a great old time, and commits the occasional war crime, under arguably understandable circumstances (and if the circumstances become less arguable over time, then great). That's what CW is doing, and they're definitely on the right track.

Something has to push him over the edge and make him think both the Jedi Code and democracy are outright inferior to dictatorship and brutality.

Yes, there needs to be a Big Precipitating Event - something that just jumps out as a big change that cracks everything wide open.

The scary thing about IRL psychos is you can't tell who they are just by talking to them for a few minutes.

I see CW Anakin as being exactly that kind of guy - which explains why he could be a psycho right under everyone's nose and they never noticed.

 

[Mr Light]

^^ When you keep saying CW I keep flashing to the CW network and some horrible Star Wars teen drama

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Sorry to cause trauma, I'll spell it out from now on.

Next on Clone Wars 90210! Ahsoka and Barris blow off their dumb mission fighting droids or something to hang out with some cute Corellian boys. The Jedi Council gets totally bent out of shape about it, like we need to take orders from a bunch of guys who are like 9000 years old.

 

[Mr Light]

Plus... sexy vampire boys!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Going back to Brain Invaders, I found it briefly entertaining to wonder whether the clones were embarrassed at being beat up by little girls but of course I immediately remembered that in the scope of their reality, there's nothing unusual about grown men being beat up by little girls, just as for Ahsoka and Berriss, there's nothing unusual about leading grown men into battle who are manufactured for the purpose in factories, or being taken from your family as a toddler and raised to believe the point of your existence is to serve the state, to have no personal life or ambitions of your own, and to be expected to attain such a saintly level of behavior that you won't even feel vengeful rage if your close friend and battle companion gets slaughtered by the enemy someday.

In that context, a lot of the stuff I've been worrying about may have a simple explanation: these people don't have the same set of assumptions we do. Manufacturing sentient beings as cannon fodder in factories, inducting children into the military, and imposing insanely difficult rules of personal conduct on your military commanders is normal for them.

So why am I assuming what they call a "Republic" is the same my definition? Maybe it's similar only in some ways, and very different in others. The common thread here is that these people don't have the same assumptions about the rights of the individual being sacred. Since individual rights is central to my concept of liberal democracy, their idea of government is bound to seem Orwellian to me.

I'm probably wildly overthinking this, but it's tempting to think the Orwellian aspects might come from a society in which there's no bright line distinguishing flesh & blood beings from droids. The droids aren't exactly equal, but they're far from being household appliances. They have personalities, but no personal lives, and they certainly don't have families. Their behavior is expected to fall within very narrow parameters compared with "regular people." They are placed in a separate category from everyone else, and their interactions with others are dominated by the way they've been defined. Sound familiar?

If you're used to almost-human beings that are manufactured and treated in callous and utilitarian ways, and labeled in such a way as to rationalize this treatment, then that mentality could easily start to slop over to clones and Jedi without anyone thinking there's anything unusual or wrong in it. For example, it strikes us as grotesque and unfair that Padme and Anakin can't marry and have kids. But do the people in this society view that as the same sort of thing as Padme trying to marry a droid? That certainly puts a different complexion on things!

I'm not criticizing Clone Wars for this - I think it's fascinating and a nice departure from the Star Trek philosophy that all baseline assumptions must come from center-left mainstream American political philosophy. It's unexpected compared with the OT, where the politics and social structure weren't really explored and the characters were just as familiar and unexotic as any in Star Trek. But there's also nothing in the OT that disputes the notion that the "Republic" our heroes were fighting to restore wasn't exactly what the audience might have assumed. We really never knew what they meant by it, and might be shocked by what they create when they're in charge again.

What throws me even more is the way Clone Wars is calibrated so children can understand it. That means we can't get two levels of narrative here - one that is literal and the other that's the writers speaking to the audience and telling us "we know this is weird, and we intend it that way." We just get the one level, where the assumption is that what we're seeing is normal, and there's zero commentary on it.

The lack of that second level is what I find confusing and disorienting - I'm never sure if what I'm seeing is intentionally weird or just a mistake. But there's been too much of it, too consistently, for it to be a mistake.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

So why am I assuming what they call a "Republic" is the same my definition? Maybe it's similar only in some ways, and very different in others. The common thread here is that these people don't have the same assumptions about the rights of the individual being sacred. Since individual rights is central to my concept of liberal democracy, their idea of government is bound to seem Orwellian to me.

Considering that Naboo had a "democratically elected" tweenage Queen, it's not unrealistic to consider "The Republic" as functioning very differently from the majority of audience expectations. I don't know if there's a commentary there so much as it's Lucas playing fast and loose with terminology.

About the closest I can recall the films getting to exploring "individual rights" was TPM, when Padmé was scandalized by the existence of slavery because The Republic had laws against it.

 

[fett51]

Instead, give us someone who is funny, fun, seems to be having a great old time, and commits the occasional war crime, under arguably understandable circumstances (and if the circumstances become less arguable over time, then great). That's what CW is doing, and they're definitely on the right track.

Indeed. Let's hope they stay on it. I'd still like to see more of how Palpatine twists him against the Jedi before the series ends.

So why am I assuming what they call a "Republic" is the same my definition? Maybe it's similar only in some ways, and very different in others. The common thread here is that these people don't have the same assumptions about the rights of the individual being sacred. Since individual rights is central to my concept of liberal democracy, their idea of government is bound to seem Orwellian to me.

The thing to remember about Republic society during this period is that it's turning into the Empire. It SHOULD be getting increasingly totalitarian and orwellian and resemble what we think of as a Republic less and less. Likewise, what's happening with the clones SHOULD be flagrantly illegal, if only because they have laws against slavery. But it's not. I think you're dead on in saying the clones are thought of as organic droids, the Kaminoans treat them precisely that way. The only people who really spend enough time with them to know different are Jedi and the occasional non-clone officer.

The Jedi are another issue entirely. We know they're allowed to leave, we know they're allowed to go back to their families even (after leaving Dooku took up his birthright as a Count on Serenno) and at least one Jedi (Ki-Adi-Mundi) has kids legally. There seem to be plenty of exceptions to the Jedi code, Obi-wan overlooking Anakin's relationship with Padme may even be one. From what I've seen past padawan years the Jedi Code is largely self-enforced and as long as one doesn't start going dark side, they're not inclined to throw the book at at you. The big question, I think, is what happens if a parent says no to Jedi recruitment. So far as I know no source has answered that.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

About the closest I can recall the films getting to exploring "individual rights" was TPM, when Padmé was scandalized by the existence of slavery because The Republic had laws against it.

Yet nobody squawks about the poor clones, who are effectively slaves. I figure this is just another example of people thinking of other sentient beings in "categories." "Real" people like Shmi and Anakin should not be enslaved. But we don't fuss so much over clones and droids.

And it might explain why Padmé wasn't scandalized enough Anakin slaughtering Sandpeople civilians to do anything about it. Maybe they aren't "real" people either? Or maybe that was bad writing. Another example of how I'm uncertain that what I'm getting out of the story is intentional.

The thing to remember about Republic society during this period is that it's turning into the Empire. It SHOULD be getting increasingly totalitarian and orwellian and resemble what we think of as a Republic less and less.

That is all new information to me! If the PT was trying to convey that idea, I sure didn't see it. Clone Wars is more successful at it, since it's started to raise questions in my mind.

From what I've seen past padawan years the Jedi Code is largely self-enforced and as long as one doesn't start going dark side, they're not inclined to throw the book at at you.

Then why can't Anakin and Padmé be up front about their marriage?

 

[Mr Light]

That is all new information to me! If the PT was trying to convey that idea, I sure didn't see it. Clone Wars is more successful at it, since it's started to raise questions in my mind.

In AOTC the Senate votes Palpatine emergency unlimited ultra legal powers without term limits to thunderous applause

 

[fett51]

]That is all new information to me! If the PT was trying to convey that idea, I sure didn't see it. Clone Wars is more successful at it, since it's started to raise questions in my mind.

...yeah, I can see how that would look not having read the novels. All we really saw was Jar Jar introduce the motion to give Palpatine more power and Obi-wan mentioned that he was still chancellor even though his term had expired. Still, it says something that by episode 3 Palpatine declaring himself Emperor is greeted by thunderous applause, as Padme put it. That's not a society that believes an individual's rights are more important than the state's will.

Then why can't Anakin and Padmé be up front about their marriage?

Because Anakin didn't make an informed adult choice to take the risk, he acted out of infatuation and while he was still a padawan to boot. I got the sense from Senate Spy that the council knew but were choosing to overlook it..actually they probably should've played Senate spy as seeing if Anakin could handle his attachment to Padme. Oh well.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

That is all new information to me! If the PT was trying to convey that idea, I sure didn't see it. Clone Wars is more successful at it, since it's started to raise questions in my mind.

In AOTC the Senate votes Palpatine emergency unlimited ultra legal powers without term limits to thunderous applause

Which had no setup that I could see - it was just "hey look the Republic is giving up!" There was no substance to how the Republic was depicted, which is why I'm still unsure whether it ever was a "Republic" as I understand the term.

Or to put it another way, in drama you need to establish what the stakes are in a situation, and I had no idea whether this "Republic" was worth bothering about. Certainly their lack of concern about clones being used as cannon fodder made me question just what kind of political order we were talking about. I didn't really care about the political story in the PT because I never understood what was at stake, if anything.

The preponderance of evidence so far is that the Republic is a big, fat, fraud. What I don't know is if it was ever anything but a big, fat, fraud. Why would a smart girl like Padme take part in this fraud? Then again, if she has no outside context of what a Republic "should" be, then maybe a corrupt oligarchy seems like a good idea to her? It does beat a nightmarishly repressive empire, but nobody at the time could have realized how bad it would get.

This certainly cracks the door wide open to giving Anakin a perfectly good reason to kick the Republic to the curb without any other explanation, psychological or otherwise, being required. He knows the Republic is no good, and how can he know for sure what replaces it would be worse? If the dark side has elements of mind control/drug addiction, and it probably does, then by the time it all happens, it's too late for him to reverse it, because by then he doesn't want to reverse it. I think I like that explanation the best of all the theories I've tried out over the years.

...yeah, I can see how that would look not having read the novels.

Maybe the novels do a better job of answering my questions about whether the Republic is "real" or a corrupt oligarchy, etc. The movies were shallow and unconvincing. I really couldn't gauge what was going on or how I should feel about it, except that any government that would let Jar-Jar in its ranks probably deserves to fall.

That's not a society that believes an individual's rights are more important than the state's will.

But did it ever? The evidence I've seen leads me to believe there was never a "real" Republic at all, just a kindler and gentler Empire.

Because Anakin didn't make an informed adult choice to take the risk, he acted out of infatuation and while he was still a padawan to boot.

He was what, about 19, right? I don't think Padme is in danger of being convicted on statutory rape charges. Sure, he was depicted in the PT as being gratingly immature, but that's his problem. A 19 year old is past the age of consent, so what's the Jedi's problem with this? And since the Anakin of Clone Wars seems outwardly much more stable and mature, what's the problem in the TV series?

 

[fett51]

[The preponderance of evidence so far is that the Republic is a big, fat, fraud. What I don't know is if it was ever anything but a big, fat, fraud. Why would a smart girl like Padme take part in this fraud? Then again, if she has no outside context of what a Republic "should" be, then maybe a corrupt oligarchy seems like a good idea to her? It does beat a nightmarishly repressive empire, but nobody at the time could have realized how bad it would get.

Padme and several other senators (including Bail Organa) are trying to change the Republic within the system rather than by violent revolution (and obviously they think the Separatists are worse than the Republic). You'll be seeing quite a bit more of this in coming episodes of Clone Wars, though obviously they don't have any lasting successes. Bail continues to do the same under the Empire until he, Mon Mothma and a few others form the Rebel Alliance. The only explanation I have for what took them so long is they are all from pacifist cultures.

The novels mostly show you what the Republic was by showing the extent to which Palpatine has changed things from what we would recognize as a modern democracy. Probably the most accessible and best of them would be the episode 3 novelization, which IMO anyway portrays Anakin much better than the film did.

A 19 year old is past the age of consent, so what's the Jedi's problem with this? And since the Anakin of Clone Wars seems outwardly much more stable and mature, what's the problem in the TV series?

Even assuming they have the same consent laws we do, I think the Jedi only rate one as capable of making their own choices when one becomes a Knight. As such, their problem is they didn't think Anakin could handle it, and of course they were right. The problem with having it be open now is continuity, supposedly nobody knows in episode 3. As for Jedi and sex, I would point out that Jedi rules only forbid attachment. For all we know Obi-wan takes home a different woman every night That may also be what the Jedi thought was happening with Anakin and Padme.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

After seeing several more episodes, I'm really starting to worry that this series is going to be an exercise in frustration. It's shaping up to be well-written and not handicapped by its mandate to appeal to children and adults both. What it is handicapped by is the mandate to fit the plotline into the bookend of two movies that were not nearly as well written. I keep hoping against hope that somehow, these writers will be given full rein to just invalidate the PT where necessary, but I doubt that's going to happen. Oh well...

Lightsaber Lost - Fun episode, loved getting a look at the Blade-Runner-esque underworld of Coruscant. I'm noticing that Ahsoka behaves a lot like Anakin in her mannerisms and how she deals with frustrating situations. Uhhhh...

Mandalore trilogy - And here's where the PT is starting to really squelch Clone Wars' narrative drive. Everything went along wonderfully under the plot went SPLAT against a brick wall in the final scene, a la Wil E. Coyote, with supposedly intelligent characters standing around scratching their butts and wondering golly gee willickers, who could possibly be behind all this?

What should have happened:

Satine: "Well Obi-Wan, either Palpatine was in on the plot or he's a blithering old fool who almost caused a catastrophe and should be removed from office immediately. This just validates my contempt for the Republic, as evil and corrupt at the worst, or at best, run with the intelligence and efficiency of the Keystone Kops. Either way, I have no frakkin' clue how you can continue to blindly serve these clowns."

Obi-Wan: "You're right, I must be a total dunce not to have seen this before. My only defense is that I'm no stupider than the entire Jedi Council. We've been spending all our time fighting in this dumbass war without stopping to consider whether there's a much larger and more important fight going on right under our noses. Obviously, either Night Watch or somone *cough* high up in the government of the Republic was behind all this. So here's how we procede: You go home and get your own house in order, and we Jedi will launch an investigation to see whether this was all just simple incompetence on the Republic's part or whether something far more sinister is going on. Either way, this shit cannot continue."

At this point, Palps' behavior should be sounding red alert sirens from here to Tattoine and back. Does he have to carve I AM UP TO NO GOOD on his forehead before anyone will pay attention? Certainly with this as backstory, his actions in ROTS should have made the Jedi rebel en masse. And if Palps had set them up in the popular imagination as a scary rogue force, that wouldn't have kept the story from concluding as it did, so there's a way to make this work within the confines of the overall plot. The poor Jedi must be allowed to act with more intelligence than they are being permitted, if they are supposed to have an ounce of credibility as an effective and savvy peacekeeping force that has political and diplomatic power.

At one level this is all hilarious, but seriously, there's nothing I find more annoying than characters who are made to be artificially stupid for the convenience of the plot. It makes me lose respect for both the characters and the writing altogether. The only mitigating factor here is that I know the Clone Wars writing staff is not to blame, and short of convincing Lucas to let them just rewrite the whole crappy plotline, they are stuck in a frustrating little box.

There's really only one plotline that can go anywhere interesting: Ahsoka's. We don't know what happens with her. But episodes that blather about the role of the Jedi, militarism, pacifism, clone rights, etc are all pointless because we know they can't go anywhere. They just spin their wheels fruitlessly.

Besides Ahsoka's story, what this series can also do is provide more interesting character development and exploration. Obi-Wan's character got a huge boost in the Mandalore plot. I know Ewan McGregor is a fine actor, but I never really felt like he really was Obi-Wan or was the same guy that Alec Guinness portrayed. The Clone Wars Obi-Wan is vastly more convincing. I was amazed at how much genuine emotional power this series could get out of a couple of animated characters in Obi-Wan and Satine - a tribute to the voice acting and the animation.

Obi-Wan's backstory will also have interesting repercussions for Anakin's story. I'm not exactly sure how much Obi-Wan knows about Anakin and Padme's relationship, but this will simply provide more rationalization fodder for Anakin, as he observes the seemingly needless turmoil caused by the stupid Jedi rules.

(I also wonder how much of Obi-Wan and Satine's conversation he overheard before he broke the deadlock by killing the traitor. That was my favorite scene so far: "What? He was going to blow up the ship!" Sometimes Anakin seems to be the only guy around with any common sense.)

(Ironically, these episodes provide more reason that the rules should be followed - even if attachment weren't a bad thing, Obi-Wan could not take up with a political leader like Satine and expect to remain part of a neutral peacekeeping force. Ditto with Anakin and Padme - the suspicion would be that Anakin would have divided loyalties between the Republic in general and his wife's world. Even marriage to a common person who wasn't part of the political power structure would be a problem, if that person had any planetary allegiances at all, and other than the Jedi, everyone apparently does have allegiances.)

The series can also provide more insight into Anakin's political viewpoint, which is getting stronger justification all the time. The Republic is less stable than I assumed from the movies, careening all over the place like a clown car, with wars breaking out, assassinations, planets bickering, etc. No wonder he's disgusted with the whole mess. There's no evidence that the Republic was any better than this in past, or at least it wouldn't have been any better in Anakin's short experience, so why not ally with Palps and create a more orderly government?

Anakin could embark on that alliance now if Palps just refrains from revealing he's a Sith (and that's the one element that nobody would necessarily guess). A more clever plotline would have Anakin trying to surreptitiously solve the Republic's obviously massive problems in concert with Palps (because the pigheaded Jedi will never go along until the solution is delivered to them on a silver platter).

Then, when Palps reveals the whole Sith thing, Anakin might shrug and figure that the prohibition against the dark side is just another example of the Jedi being needlessly rigid and unimaginative. After all, he's had no direct evidence that the "dark side" is terrible in its own right. Maybe the "dark side" label is just Jedi propaganda? All he knows is that the Jedi approach to making things better has failed, and a new approach is needed. Common-sense Anakin to the rescue!

Padme and several other senators (including Bail Organa) are trying to change the Republic within the system rather than by violent revolution (and obviously they think the Separatists are worse than the Republic). You'll be seeing quite a bit more of this in coming episodes of Clone Wars, though obviously they don't have any lasting successes.

I don't care if they're unsuccessful, but unless these writers are given rein to rewrite ROTS, which begin with everyone being clueless about Palps, then they're going to continue to make the characters appear to be total dunces.

The only explanation I have for what took them so long is they are all from pacifist cultures.

Yet they don't object to the Jedi and clones fighting a bloody war for them. And pacifism doesn't make you stupid. The real explanation is that the PT is badly written and requires the characters to be idiots, so the PT needs to be overwritten. (I'd overwrite all three movies to significant degree - Clone Wars should backpedal and re-do the way Anakin and Padme begin their relationship as well, since the revision in Anakin's portrayal will make that far more credible.)

As for the Jedi rules about no-attachment, I don't dispute that they're valid, only the idea that any Jedi can have a real marriage under a no-attachment arrangement. That kind of marriage would be rather grotesque ("I love you, honey, but I also love everyone else in the galaxy equally, including Count Dooku and any random Hutt I happen to stumble across") and I would question what the point of such a "marriage" would be. Random anonymous sex would be okay, but only if you stuck to a strict one-night-stand rule, because going back to the same person again is right back to "attachment" now isn't it? Otherwise, why bother with someone more than once?