#TOTJ text post

[ventresses]

Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi (1/?)

Star Wars + Text Posts & Headlines

[mimi-noelle]

Thinking about Tales of the Jedi and that episode with Qui-Gon and Dooku and how at the end of the episode they have that conversation that can be summarized as:

Qui-Gon: You almost killed a man

Dooku: You are very wise, my young padawan

[mademoiselle-cookie]

I'm sorry if you feel disrespected, but it's pretty daring to talk about disrespect when I'm just proving my ideas to you with arguments, when you only have baseless points (a bit of projection?). And if you willingly came to a post tag as 'pro-jedi' and is suprised that someone is arguing with you, I have sad news for you about the world.

Honestly don't bother to respond because I only do that because I LOVE talking about SW and you won't change your mind. You're a walking red flag for what I see. I was Jedi critical before but I changed my mind after really seeing the movies and analysing them in depth. If you stay on your positions after all my proofs, it's because you have ulterior reasons, and it sucks.

You are someone who closely values George Lucas’ vision, and I am not, that’s what it boils down to. You react to the text based on how well it correlates with that initial intention, I react to it based on the context of the story itself as it has been written both by Lucas and by the various other people who have added their creative voices to the story, and my own life experience.

The problem is not how we see Lucas' intentions but canonicity. I have no problem with what Disney brings as long as it stays consistent with the original SW (I know it might sound contradictory but if a writer writes that something is blue, and their successor says it's red, it's not consistent. On the other hand, if they continues to say that it is blue, it does not matter who the original author is, it remains faithful to the spirit). The thing is, the EU was never canon.

« [Game makers and novel writers] have their own kind of world […] the movies and TV shows are all under my control and they are consistent within themselves » George Lucas, Total Film, 2008.  

« Our expanded universe books and comics were never meant to be canon. Only what George wrote was canon » Lucy Autrey Wilson (ex-director of Publishing for Lucasfilm), Star Wars Interviews, 2022.

« Our biggest problem was a guy named George Lucas. […] We wanted it to be one universe, […] but George as the filmaker didn’t want to be beholden to somebody else’s creative vision. » Howard Roffman (head of Licensing at Lucasfilm ) « Messing with a classic », 2017.

Lucas was the one to decide what is canon and what is not. So only the movies and TV series were.

You can't judge SW canon with the EU, they don't take place in the same universe. And since you came to a post talking about the canon and that never mentioned the EU, you can only use the canon in your argument.

And I agree with the 'what are the author's intentions' vs 'what they show'. I have this problem with TOTJ. The original idea already sucks but HOW Filoni shows the events doesn't even work with his intentions (he want to be Jedi critical but failed badly). But you didn't give an argument that is not 1. from the canon or 2. completely out of context (I will come back to that).

And it's not to say that Lucas writing is perfect. He thinks Anakin is fine and can be still be redeemed in ROTS when the Tusken massacre already happened, he write Anidala as a good but tragic romance when it was always extremely toxic and creepy, Anakin is supposed to be a strangely extremely excellent General when it's one of the most incompetent. And I can't get past this.

(It's still strange that you talk about the EU but that you don't take into account the works that are pro-jedi. You claim that Quilan is shunned and looked down upon as an absolute truth, especially by Obi-Wan when the two are best friends, so this idea that he's hated is just pure invention. So you demand respect for your imaginary world. You're delusional)

But there's also nothing wrong with the way I interpret the story

You're perfectly right. You can see SW the way you want, no issue with that, but you're the one imposing their view.

Given what was in some of those temples (and that's just ones we know about), I don't really care why they left. Abandoning them was a mistake. And the fact those outposts existed in the first place proves the Jedi had use for them. The fact that their purpose is lost even to the Jedi in-story is Not Good. The sheer size of the galaxy is more reason for the Jedi to be more spread out. How could having at least a few major sites across the galaxy make them less effective than having just one right in the middle?

You never moved? Whether it's because of the money, because you have to go to another city, because you don't like the neighborhood anymore, because it's dangerous…? There's many valid reasons to do that.

And again, an outposts is useless. You seem under the impression that Jedi are a military group. They're not. Jedi are diplomats, not wandering knights. They get their power and autority not from their brutal strength but from the Republic. Having vigilantes everywhere is pointless. They are far too few for a galaxy far too large. Even if there was ONE Jedi for ONE system (so including children), it won't be enough. (For comparison, there are 35,000 employees in the Red Cross and 500,000 volunteers on ONE planet where it's not even the only humanitarian organization. Are they able to help everyone just about problems in their field? No. Do they have to? No. Wouldn't it be up to the government instead to ensure that these problems do not exist? Yes)

What good is a lightsaber against a political conflict between two planets? Nothing. But the authority given by the Republic to negotiate peace between them? A lot!

We didn't have much about how the Jedi work before the war but from what we see, they act with the authorization of the Senate. Which is normal, nobody can do whatever they want, especially dangerous space wizards. So living near the center of command is logic, you can directly discuss with politicians or receiving your missions or whatever without having to space-travel.

By the way, speaking of that, did you forget hyperspace? They're no need to leave near the 'possible' zone where something 'can' happen when you can just use your ship (even if you leave nearby, you WILL use your ship anyway, you can't just walk between planets)

The purpose of this outposts (are they even outposts?) doesn't seem lost either, they just look like their former home. Nothing more.

Keeping all the kids in one place ultimately did not protect them though. Having multiple schools across the galaxy would have forced Palpatine to organize a coordinated strike on every location at once, which would have been far less effective overall.

If the Jedi were divided in different locations, then their forces would have been weaker. It's mathematic. (Divide and rule if you know what I mean) It's easier to protect a group of things/people/others if they are in the same place. Go watch again the ep "Bounty Hunters" on Felucia. That's why they want to keep the villagers and the sillim in the hangar.

Palpatine already did organized a coordinated strike. Remember all the Jedi in the battlefield? Aayla, Ki-Adi, Depa, Plo Koon, etc? They weren't in the Temple and they were killed anyway.

And don't tell me that there would have been no clones in the different "outposts". We know there were some in the Temple of Coruscant (if you need proofs, there's were clones killed during the explosion organized by Leta in the Temple).

The Jedi are in war, do you think they have the means and staff to have multiple schools? That they can easily defend (because of course the Separatists will try to target them, they already did with medical bases)?

I disagree that dividing the initiates would have decreased diversity. A large group of children growing up in one place and learning from the same group of instructors is going to end up far more homogeneous than multiple smaller groups growing up in different places, immersed in different cultures, and each learning from different instructors, no matter how many guest lecturers they have.

OK, you just don't know how mathematics work.

How having a thousand possible teachers is less diverse than a small group?

We see Ahsoka herself having several teachers in TCW, of very different gender, age, species and culture. Outside of the obvious Anakin and Obi-Wan, there's :

And her teachers aren't limited to Jedi!

She even became a teacher herself.

(It's not to say I am not against there being several "sects" among the Jedi (@acewizardinspace made a very good post on this subject here) but it is necessary to explain the why and the how. And it needs to be canon)

Some of the Lurmens and the villagers on Felucia criticized the Jedi in the same way. To them, Jedi only appeared in times of violence and crisis.

Yes, ONE Lurmen critized the Jedi but not specifically because they're Jedi but because of his philosophy of "It takes two to fight".

And the double episode are there to prove him wrong. He refused to fight or use any form of violence against the Separatists, despite the Separatists ransacking his village, or promising they will conduct other "searches for Republic contraband" in the future, and he stated that there was no reason to believe that the Separatists would attack them with their defoliator specifically made to target organic beings (to his son's frustration). Because other Lurmens didn't share his opinions.

Wag Too: "We're going to help." Tee Watt Kaa: "I forbid this!" Wag Too: "What more would you have them do before we are allowed to defend ourselves?" Tee Watt Kaa: "But…" Wag Too: "We have to do this!"

Tee Watt Kaa was ready to have his village killed for the sake of not fighting! ("If it is our destiny to be destroyed in your war, so be it.") He wrongly believe that being pacifist would be a sufficient protection against violence. And if the Jedi had not been there, the village would have been destroyed.

So, to prove the Jedi were wrong, you used an episode made to show they were right. CLAP CLAP CLAP

The villagers of Felucia didn't criticized the Jedi. On the contrary, they were happy they were there (Cassis : "Can't you see these are Jedi? We are saved!"). The only things I can recall that match your description is the one who complained because he didn't want to fight himself, and one of the bounty hunters, Sugi, who said the Jedi failed as peacekeepers because they're in war (a war they didn't create, from which they were drafted and if they didn't fight, people will die horribly). She's immediately contradicted by Obi-Wan, one of TCW’s most reliable narrators. (And, well, she's a bounty hunter, she fight for money. She only care about her business, so the viewers are not supposed to care about her opinion.)

And in the end, what's the problem if the Jedi only appear during time of crisis? It's their job to resolve conflicts, of course they appear when there's conflicts.

Same for Trace and Rafa. They didn't dislike Jedi solely because of Palpatine's propaganda, they disliked them because the Jedi were seen as high-and-mighty agents of the Republic, not servants of the people, as they should have been.

How do you know its not solely because of Palpatine? Did you knew the sisters before the war? They were introduced to show the efficiency of anti-jedi propaganda. That's they're role in the narrative.

They're not accurate reliable narrator. Again, the sisters are people who think they can escape the war by going where the real war is. They think the Jedi started the war when we know that's not true, they thinks Jedi must take care of every individual civilian when that's the role of the Republic and the Jedi are in the middle of a war. If they had misinformations about the Jedi, if they had expectations of them - that they could not possibly realistically meet - it's because of the political set-up, because of Palpatine. They doesn't realize the Jedi are fighting on their behalf. And how bad the sisters would have been if they knew they were dying for people like them, and still criticize them for- what, not doing enough?

The ONLY thing that makes a little sense is when they think Luminara was cold with them.

(keep in mind we only have THEIR side of the story, the pov of two hurt young women who lost their parents. We don't know how Luminara really reacted)

This is not Luminara being cold. It's Luminara using the most meaningful words she can to reassure people who lost someone important.

Does that means Trace and Rafa must accept them? No, of course not. They don't feel the Force, this blessing doesn't have the same meaning for them, so it's normal if they don't take comfort from it. To the Jedi, it means everything, but to someone who doesn’t understand, it can sound pointless and unhelpful.

But we, spectators, know it's incredibly important for the Jedi. It's said in basicaly every movie, it's said during all Luke journey with the Force, it's the last thing Obi-Wan has recorded in the Jedi beacon in ROTS. It's even become a cliché in the real world.

And even if we didn't have this context, what Luminara says is like a religious person telling "My thoughts and prayers be with you" to an atheist. As an atheist, I'm happy when someone use the most powerful words to make me feel better, even if it's through their religion. You don't need to understand the religion to understand the good intentions.

I believe they should have been a more community-oriented presence rather than acting mostly on behalf of the Senate.

And firefighters should have been more community-oriented to instead of listening their orders. That way, fewer people would want to throw stones at their trucks.

Jedi shouldn't care about their reputation. They should act according to what they can do and whether it is right or not. Being worried about what the public will think and act accordingly will be a disaster.

Their job is more important than a community-oriented presence. They can do so much more. They can stop war or save planets.

What tell you don't already have a community-oriented presence? Maybe it's the hobby of some Jedi, maybe it's part of younglings/Padawan training.

What use would that be? Regardless of their reputation (which was already extremely good before the war) and the public's knowledge of the Jedi, the propaganda and predicament created by the war would still have made civilians credulous.

Yes, the Jedi were naive to think their actions will speak for them and to do not pay special attention to their reputation, but they have good reasons to not care about it, and it wouldn't have saved them anyway.

Don't accuse me of victim blaming and then turn around and blame the Republic's citizens for "accepting" the Empire. That's not classy.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Projection is really something, isn't it?

So saying that a Republic which elects its Supreme Chancellor as Emperor and applauds when he annonces the genocide of a whole community without trial is victim blaming but saying that said community should have divide their numbers, changed their view on their own philosophy, had a better public image, been less arrogant, more flexible, more kind with the one who will lead their genocide, etc, etc, etc. is not? Gotcha!

It's not at all as if it was one of the themes of the prequels and that it was said several times

Oh, it is.

But it wasn't like George Lucas said that himself:

"How do democraties end? And mostly they end because the Senate or the people bring in a dictator." Starlog #337, 2005

"[...] it got me thinking about how democraties turn into dictatorships. Not how they're taken over, or how there's a coup or anything like that, but how the democracy turns itself over to a tyrant." Revenge of the Sith, Director's Commentary, 2005

"How does a democracy crumble? How does it die? [...] Would the people vot for it? And yes, they do vote for it, that's the whole point. [...] And the populace gives up the democratic powers and this guy is suddenly running the show. You end up with the Empire." An Oral History of star Wars: Episode I, 2019

"The story is ultimately a discussion about how fragile democracy is and how democracies sometimes get turned over to tyrants with applause" (as reported in Secrets of the Force), 2021

Oh, he did.

I know perfectly well what attachment means in Star Wars. I just happen to think "attachment" was an awful word to use to describe it and that it has lead to a murky portrayal of the concept with excellent highs (Anakin understanding the theory but being unable to separate his love for Padme from his attachment to her in practice) but equally devastating lows (Ahsoka and Luke's tonal whiplash as they went from very loving people to distant masters who preached the no attachment rule without explaining what it actually meant, thus muddying their characters and the intended moral lesson in the process).

That's your opinion and it's valid but keep in mind that a word in a specific context is not the same in another. Like, if a mechanic or a Doctor Who fan hears the word "screwdriver", they won't think the same.

Or simply, homonyms. Words can be spelled the same way and not have the same meaning at all.

About the term attachment in particular, it has a different meaning in the context of parenting and in the context of Buddhist teachings. Yes, the English term is much more neutral when in Sanskrit, it's closer to 'thirst' or'clinging'. But it's the term that's been used in English even before Lucas decides to use it. So he used it.

I won't defend TBOBF further, I didn't even care about the show. You can hate that however you want.

Yoda was obviously calling out Obi-Wan (who missed it entirely, poor dear) but that doesn't mean what he said wasn't also true in the broader context.

If you want. To each his own interpretation of the scene.

But it would have been better if Lucas shows them being arrogant, except for that ONE scene with Jocasta (which was perfectly understable because the Jedi archives had Kamino in their files, they just couldn't guess one of their own will erase it).

I said Anakin's attitude caused ripples, not that he was hated. Don't put a whole paragraph of words in my mouth.

Then what's the problem? He was never punished and was even complimented for his behavior. The "ripples" Anakin's attitude caused was because a high ranking officier disobeyed orders. It's normal, there's nothing shameful about Jedi raising an eyebrow at that (because that's litteraly the extent of Anakin's punishment).

Once again, I have never said nor insinuated that the genocide of the Jedi was their own fault, despite how determined you are to claim I have.

You are. By saying they could have done more, by doing such and such a thing, which would have been the logical thing to do if they weren't arrogant or too rigid, you insinuate that they could have reduce the horror of their tragedy, that more would have survived if they were better. Victim blaming is more than that.

If you said to a woman who was raped that even if she wasn't responsible of her attack, if she had a knife, it would have never happened, or it would have not been 'this bad', it's still awful. (Yes the example of rape is easy, but it's a horrible crime and unfortunately the comparison works)

And for the record, the extermination of a fictional, powerful, government sanctioned religious order of warrior-monks is very different from the genocide of a real-world marginalized religious minority

Yes, the Jedi genocide is fictional. But genocides aren't. The "it's just fiction" is an excuse, its only usefulness is that it's less sad than real deaths. That's it. It does not mean that you can say that the victims of the said genocide are responsible for it, could have prevented it or done better. It doesn't work like that.

If the author uses it as a parallel for the real world, you use real world logic to understand it. If Lucas represents a genocide, it's to see how horrible the persons who committed it are, not to criticize their victims.

Fiction as an excuse is just like anonymity on Internet, they offer the opportunity to freely express their real opinion on a subject, no matter how horrible it is.

No, the fact that the Jedi were warriors does not make it less impactful or sad or undeserved than if they had been mere monks. Nor the fact they were a government sanctioned religious order BEFORE their genocide. Genocide is genocide, period.

Palpatine used the Jedi's wishy-washy stance on politics to maneuver them into a no-win scenario

You don't want powerful wizard who can strangle you with their mind or manipulate yours in politics. Believe me.

"How? Give examples and screenshots." "Proof of his closed-mindness?" ahem no (:

Nice to show you didn't have any proof (:

I do not owe you my time or effort, nor do I need to justify myself to you because you don't like my opinion. You're lucky I've given you this. Don't push it.

Then why do you respond? Even better, why did you reblog a pro-jedi post?

Luke throwing away his lightsaber was him choosing the Jedi way of compassion and non-violence, rejecting the cycle of hatred and killing that Palpatine began. Attachment would not become a talking point until the prequel trilogy.

Just because it's not explicitly presented doesn't mean it's not there, George just didn't use the word 'attachment'.

Non-attachment is not something obscur, even we, westerner, have it in our culture. What do you think it is when Hiccup chooses to part with the dragons for their own good in 'How to Train Your Dragon'?

Anyway, that's it from me. I'm going to choose the Jedi way of peace and go do something else now.

Stick to your words, sweetie

Darth Maul on Obi-Wan Kenobi +

Perception of the Jedi by their Enemies

Darth Maul has a very consistent strategy when trying to bring down Obi-Wan. Which is attack somewhere, put innocent people in danger. Kenobi being the annoying knight he is will come running to save them. Than kill him when he is busy being a good person.

1-Raydonia 2-Satine 3-Mandalore 4-Luke

(He didn't personally go in the third one but he sent Ahsoka. And he put himself in great risk by authorizing the Siege. This action was illegal.)

The best part is Maul is completely aware what he is doing. He acknowledges this many times.

Your noble flaw is a weakness shared by you and your duchess.

I was expecting Kenobi. Why are you here?

I am lost... And yet, I-I can feel his presence, so close. So close! I can... see him... in my mind's eye. Kenobi. KENOBIIIII!... Will it end here, like this? No. NO! I must draw kenobi out, tempt his noble heart. But how, how?... I know... I know.

His plans literally revolves around Obi-Wan having a noble heart. Which is one of the reasons Maul sees it as a flaw. Because it leaves someone vulnerable to wicked people like Maul.

This isn't even a specific Maul & Obi-Wan thing. We can find many examples of people trying to use Jedi's virtue against them. The Jedi seem to have a reputation in the galaxy as highly virtuous people.

Examples:

Admiral Trench specifically bombarding Senator Organa's refugee camps because he believes this will force Republic Army to engage him. (Tell me again how Republic was as bad as the CIS)

Zygerrian slavers method of enslaving and attempting to control Jedi was hurting innocents every time they showed defiance.

Admiral Trench makes this gamble again in the last season but with the worst person he could choose.

This is a good reference to other scenes and quotes. Reusing the word "nobility" was definitely trying to make a contrast between Trench & Anakin with Maul & Obi-Wan.

It really shows how much Anakin has diverted from what a Jedi should be. He even calls nobility a flaw like Maul does.

☀️☀️☀️

Inspiration for this post came when after seeing some bewildering takes on Obi-Wan, my first thought was:

"Man, even Maul would find these claims ridiculous. No one in star wars has any delusions of Kenobi being evil or corrupt to the degree they imagine."

Things spiraled from there. I ended up finding many evidences of this in canon. Like this quote ⬇️

Why come to this place, not simply to hide?... Oh, you have a purpose here.

I love this one. Maul knows Kenobi is not one to abandon his duty or ideals. Which means if he is on Tatooine he must have some some kind of mission here.

☀️☀️☀️

All of this resulted in creating a hilarious picture because,

I can't believe Admiral Trench and Zygerrians have a more positive perception of the Jedi than many fans of Star Wars.

And people are really out there making Darth freaking MAUL look like a fan. You know it has gone too far when even Maul (the og hater) can't agree with such horrible takes.

I must draw Kenobi out, tempt his noble heart.

[journen]

Mullet-wan Kenobi for the wiiiiiiiiiin!!!!

Thank you for giving us this invaluable gift

It was my pleasure!

[memesofthejedi]

[image description: white text on a black background that reads, “Kun takes his booty and escapes”]

[ireallyamabear]

the state of Star Wars in 2022: next project will be an animated series about those two clone troopers that actually think Bail Organa was talking to them doing a heel turn and joining the rebellion but as it turns out they're special clones that have Count Dooku DNA mixed in (don't ask why he just accidentally spilled some on Camino or smth) that's why they're also very white when they take of their helmets; also the series will feature some incest (because it worked well for that GoT spin off), but in a kid-friendly consumable way-

[merrysithmas]

I loved your post talking about what great teacher Anakin actually was to Ahsoka. Since totj came out I’ve seen people talking about what a terrible teacher he was because he turned up late to Ahsoka’s (his only student) test. Which I feel like misses so much of the point. This was also clearly still early on in their relationship so they definitely still had to figure out how the whole thing worked. While I do think he should have been on time to say he was a terrible teacher just seems a bit much.

Also, I feel like the trailer made it seem like his Dark Side was slipping through while the show made it seem like he was upset with the training the Jedi were giving, and that he found it inadequate. Which isn’t wrong. It seemed like Anakin very clearly saw the flaws of their training and how it related to the situations Ahsoka was headed towards.

Anakin was late to her test because, in the text of the episode, he personally felt the test was not only meaningless but singlehandedly preparing the student he deeply loved for a fast-tracked death on the field of a war he'd already been fighting for years.

Something Ahsoka herself understood by the end of the ep - and an incredibly valuable lesson Anakin also taught her by proxy:

If you're being tested to succeed at false goalposts, then you're failing anyway.

[maeve-on-mustafar]

I've been seeing a lot of discussion and negative reaction surrounding Mace's characterization in TOTJ, and honestly, while I understand people's frustration with the treatment of Mace, I'm kind of surprised by the amount of surprise I'm seeing across the fandom? Because to me, it seems like Mace's character getting thrown under the bus to make other characters look more sympathetic has been going on for a while now.

TBH, though I understand TV series reach a wider audience than books ever will, I do wish there was some more interest from fandom in discussing it whenever it happens, not just when Dave Filoni does it.

Like, I loved the Star Wars: Brotherhood novel by Mike Chen for its portrayal of Anakin and his relationship with Obi-Wan. But I will be the first to say that this book treated Mace terribly, characterized him as a blind pawn of Palpatine and a constant antagonist of Anakin, and didn't portray him with any redeeming qualities. I made a post about it here with various examples from the text.

But only a few people seemed upset by this characterization of Mace. Over and over, I saw his extremely unpleasant characterization dismissed as, "Well, Anakin is an unreliable narrator," even though there's a scene where Obi-Wan thinks to himself that Mace has a grudge against Anakin. The most critical discussion I ever saw of Mace's characterization was the Tapcaf Transmissions podcast.

I also want to talk again about this scene from the Obi-Wan and Anakin comic by Charles Soule:

I typically see a lot of defense of Mace for this moment, and I kind of get it, because I do think it brought about even more bad faith interpretations of his character. And I often see this moment discussion from a Watsonian perspective--that in the moment, there was nothing Mace could do to help Anakin, and he had to obey Palpatine, and therefore, he didn't do anything wrong.

But I want to talk about this moment from a Doylist perspective. I discussed it a little bit in this post, but to summarize this interaction and my problem with it, the author chose to use the only prominent black character in the Prequel trilogy (Mace) to make a white character (Anakin) look more sympathetic. There was no reason to include Mace in the Anakin-Palpatine origin story. So why would the author choose to have him there at all, much less in such a direct and aware way, when nothing in the films or TCW or previous canon media indicated Mace Windu had a role in facilitating the relationship between a 12yo Anakin and Chancellor Palpatine?

Well, because it reduces Anakin's responsibility in the matter. There's a reason Charles Soule opted to make Anakin very young when Palpatine started to sink his claws into him rather than a couple of months before AOTC. There's a reason Palpatine starts honing in on Anakin's past trauma of being a slave and using it to manipulate him. Because it reduces Anakin's eventual culpability in betraying the Jedi and makes it look like he's not a grown man making his own decisions, but a young adult who's been preyed upon and manipulated by the ultimate authority figure all his life.

And I believe that reason of making Anakin is the same reason for the addition of Mace being the person to give permission for Palpatine to meet with/counsel Anakin. Because it changes the Jedi from only being suspicious of Palpatine and his relationship with Anakin from the time of ROTS to a sudden ten years prior. Now it comes across as less like the Jedi being blindsided by the Chancellor interfering and pulling strings for Anakin to him doing so for a decade, half of which when Anakin was underage. And by extending the timeline this length of years, the narrative makes the Jedi look kind of dumb for never acting on their uneasiness about Palpatine and Anakin.

But if you're not convinced by any of my arguments so far, I want to close with this final point: let's look at the source material. Let's double check what Mace's views were on Anakin spending time with Palpatine in ROTS, and if there's anything to indicate that would lead Charles Soule to believe Mace would give the okay to Anakin hanging out with Palpatine.

And in ROTS, we have the following:

MACE WINDU: It's very dangerous putting them together. I don't think the boy can handle it. I don't trust him.

So, yeah. Charles Soule opted to change an element of Mace's character and introduce this unnecessary retcon so that Mace could be the one to allow the Anakin-Palpatine relationship to foster and therefore play an unwitting role in his own demise.

And that's my main reason for disliking Mace's part in Obi-Wan and Anakin. His role isn't about his own character, it's about making Anakin look more sympathetic and Palpatine look more predatory. And I love Anakin, but I hate that Mace was treated this way, and I hate the way he was treated in Brotherhood.

To be clear, I'm not blaming anyone for being upset about how Filoni characterized Mace, but I do want to point out that this is an issue that exists outside of just Filoni.

[ventresses]

Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi (2/?)

Star Wars + Text Posts & Headlines