At some point when talking about the Jedi and the Prequels and Star Wars, I feel like there's distinctions that need to be made.
There's George Lucas' Star Wars.
And then there's Star Wars the transmedia franchise.
They are not one and the same.
They have similar messages. Depending on which continuity you go for, the message is more or less alike (Disney canon's treatment of the Jedi Order is slightly more aligned with GL's vision than the Legends canon was).
But they are not the same.
George Lucas' Star Wars is just the six films and the first six seasons of TCW which serve as an addendum to the six films, and the values and messages that derive from them.
The transmedia franchise has those values, but they've been diluted through comics and novels and games and authors who don't agree with GL's vision and authors who tweaked it a bit and retcons until it's no longer the same thing.
Which takes us to "did the Jedi deserve to fall" and the answers:
"no, but the institution needed to go"
There is NOTHING to indicate that read in George Lucas' Star Wars.
If you go by the movies ONLY, then the Jedi are in the right, and what happens to them is tragic, and I don't just mean Order 66.
The movies' narrative literally frames them - as a people, a religion and an institution - (and Bail Organa) as objectively good and the only ones trying to do what's right.
However, some of the marketing and storylines and comics and books presented in the EU and in new canon do support this POV.
If you count those as "just as valid and canon as the films and shows" then you'll have a very different view of the Jedi Order.
"yes, for what they did to Ahsoka".
Ahsoka is part of TCW.
If your Star Wars is the same as Lucas', then TCW is meant to be an asterisk in the larger story, nothing more than a footnote.
As such, Ahsoka's part is NOT that big, her being on Mandalore or being expelled from the Jedi Order is NOT a contributing factor for Anakin's turn to the Dark Side.
Ahsoka is NOT a part of the Prequels, which represent KEY moments in Anakin's life and the Republic's downfall.
But for many, Star Wars is the transmedia franchise. And TCW and the Prequel films are one and the same. So Ahsoka's treatment factors into the judgment.
If you add TCW's stories to the mix, welp, the show certainly questions them here and there, showing the war corrupted their values (because it was designed to do so) but in the first six seasons it does so in a fair manner showing both sides of the argument.
They're framed as caught between a rock and a hard place. They HAVE to do the very thing they didn't wanna do or people get enslaved and get killed.
Under Lucas, TCW does what it was meant to do: it adds footnotes, it shows unfortunate downsides. It's not meant to define what is seen in the films.
Whereas by the time we're in Season 7 and Lucas is no longer involved, we get this:
"They could do better but choose not to because they're playing politics." That's it.
Which is what I mean when I'm talking about the franchise: it has grown past George Lucas' vision, for better or for worse.
For some, TCW redefines what is seen in the films.
622 notes
·
View notes
What "The Hidden Fortress" (1958) tells us about the Jedi's status in the Prequels.
In 1999, George Lucas had this to say on BBC Omnibus: A Long Time Ago: The Story of "Star Wars" and then The Phantom Menace's director's commentary.
“I greatly admired Kurosawa, especially the film Hidden Fortress, which told a story from the point of view of two serfs, two slaves...
... peasants who tag along with this famous general and a princess-- y'know, royalty. And the whole story is told from their point of view. And I like that idea.
I like the idea of telling a story from the lowest person's point of view, uh, in the food chain, and that's how the story got to be told by Artoo and Threepio.”
“[The Phantom Menace] is told primarily from the Jedi's point of view, but the story that's being told is essentially the story of Queen Amidala and her plight of having her planet blockaded. As in, say, Episode IV, where the story is told through the eyes of the droids, in this one, it's told through the eyes of the Jedi.”
“But [from the moment we get to Coruscant, Anakin and Jar Jar] are standing on the sidelines. It's a little bit a riff on the very first film where the story is told through the point of view of the droids, who were sort of the lowliest characters.”
“And in [Phantom Menace], I'm doing it through - primarily - the two Jedi, but then the secondary characters are also carrying a lot of the weight when the Jedi aren't around.”
George Lucas draws a comparison between lowly characters like Hidden Fortress' peasants Matashichi and Tahei, the droids in A New Hope, as well as the Jedi in The Phantom Menace.
What do they all have in common? They are all the lowest-ranking characters in their respective films. Repeat: the movie frames the Jedi as almost at the bottom of the food chain.
Because of course they are. Functionally, they're just diplomats. They hold no political power whatsoever and barely have any authority .
What little authority the Jedi do have in TPM comes from the Queen's young age, which allows them to ease into a more advisory position, and Qui-Gon's rebellious streak. And even he's explicit about the fact that his mandate has limitations.
The only characters "below" them in status are Jar Jar, an exiled Gungan, and Anakin, who just yesterday was still a slave kid, Artoo the literal object and that's it!
Also the other Prequel films are consistent with this portrayal. Who do we see lower in status than the Jedi? Dexxter Jettster and the clones. Everyone else is pretty much above them.
Yes, the Jedi are part of the system, but they're not as high-ranking as you'd think. Yes, they have Force Powers, but that means squat when put against political power. So, like, to expect the Jedi to...
influence the decisions of the Senate,
wage a war against the Outer Rim to end slavery,
or blatantly refuse an order to join the war effort,
... is incredibly unreasonable.
They're not meant to be seen as "the elite, peering down upon the people from their ivory tower".
They're the servants! Servants of the Republic.
And they're seeing their higher-ups destroy what they should all stand for, but are unable to stop them.
Later on, with The Clone Wars, we are introduced to civilian characters and from their point of view, the Jedi are ultra powerful and are highly placed and "should do more but don't".
It makes sense that these characters would see the Jedi as 'the elite'. But they don't have the full picture.
We, as the audience, do.
So we know that the reality is more along the lines of the Jedi "should do more but can't".
After all, we are made privy many instances of the Jedi speaking up and trying to change politicians' minds, only to be dismissed and overruled at every turn.
↑ these aren't even all the times we see it happen, btw, there's more examples...
So at some point, if you - as an audience member - see all this and are still saying "the Jedi should've done more!" I really need to know... what more could they have done?
Take control of the Senate?
That'll result in a dictatorship, there's a reason they waited as much as they did before trying to take down Palpatine.
Power corrupts and they're wise enough to know it.
Don't join the Republic in the first place?
George Lucas never frames the Jedi's involvement with the Republic as a bad thing. In the foreword to Shatterpoint (2004), he says their being part of the Republic led to 1,000 years of prosperity.
Where's the issue, then? Well, it's a two-man job and the Jedi's bosses, the Senate, grew corrupt and stopped doing their part. They stopped carrying their end of the couch.
But “no Jedi in the Republic from the get-go” means the Sith will rise to power even faster. Fun!
Stay neutral in the war?
The Separatists were killing civilians and testing weapons on neutral systems, or enslaving them.
The choice put before the Jedi was "do what we tell you and fight, or let people die".
But also, out-of-universe... do you really think Palpatine, genius politician, master of spin, can't re-frame the Jedi staying neutral in a negative light?
When they joined the war, he unleashed propaganda that either directly (on the Separatist side) or indirectly (on the Republic side) framed them as "warmongers who corrupted their values". If they don't join, they're "apathetic cowards who care more about their own values than the lives of the people they're supposed to protect".
So either way, Order 66 comes around, wipes them out and the Republic goes "good riddance".
So what else could they do?
The answer is "not much".
Because the whole point of the narrative is that Palpatine checkmated them by taking the fight to a field the Jedi had no experience in or right to meddle with: politics.
So if you look at these characters who are nowhere near the top of the food chain, and say "well, why didn't they fix things?" I'm sorry to say you're missing the point of the narrative.
Or maybe you do get the point of the narrative and just aren't trying to be fair...
... in which case, at least be consistent and also argue:
"Why didn't Threepio & Artoo do more to save the Rebel crew of the Tantive IV from the stormtrooopers?!"
"Why didn't Matashichi & Tahei do more to save the Akizuki clan?!"
839 notes
·
View notes