Disney goes full sjw and fires Gina Carano from the Mandalorian

[jeff37923]

It would be nice if at least someone on the Jedi Council were to refuse to support slavery and resign.

It's an aristocratic society. Someone will be at the bottom, and they will have extremely limited rights, whether they're called slaves, serfs - or clones. And those at the top will congratulate themselves on their magnanimity even as they take a drink from the tray of a passing slave. "We rule for their good, really. It's the natural order of things."

The primary reason why Count Dooku joined the Separatists in canon was that he was protesting the excesses of the Republic and the Jedi's involvement in politics when it suited them.

[HappyDaze]

It would be nice if at least someone on the Jedi Council were to refuse to support slavery and resign.

It's an aristocratic society. Someone will be at the bottom, and they will have extremely limited rights, whether they're called slaves, serfs - or clones. And those at the top will congratulate themselves on their magnanimity even as they take a drink from the tray of a passing slave. "We rule for their good, really. It's the natural order of things."

The primary reason why Count Dooku joined the Separatists in canon was that he was protesting the excesses of the Republic and the Jedi's involvement in politics when it suited them.

They've played back and forth with it. Dooku went full Sith 10 years before he joined the Separatists. When they did that, it really wrecked a lot of his potential.

[Ratman_tf]

It would be nice if at least someone on the Jedi Council were to refuse to support slavery and resign.

It's an aristocratic society. Someone will be at the bottom, and they will have extremely limited rights, whether they're called slaves, serfs - or clones. And those at the top will congratulate themselves on their magnanimity even as they take a drink from the tray of a passing slave. "We rule for their good, really. It's the natural order of things."

The primary reason why Count Dooku joined the Separatists in canon was that he was protesting the excesses of the Republic and the Jedi's involvement in politics when it suited them.

Was that in the cartoons or something? I don't remember them specifying why Dooku was a seperatist in the films. Just some vague disillusionment with the Jedi and the Republic.

[HappyDaze]

It would be nice if at least someone on the Jedi Council were to refuse to support slavery and resign.

It's an aristocratic society. Someone will be at the bottom, and they will have extremely limited rights, whether they're called slaves, serfs - or clones. And those at the top will congratulate themselves on their magnanimity even as they take a drink from the tray of a passing slave. "We rule for their good, really. It's the natural order of things."

The primary reason why Count Dooku joined the Separatists in canon was that he was protesting the excesses of the Republic and the Jedi's involvement in politics when it suited them.

Was that in the cartoons or something? I don't remember them specifying why Dooku was a seperatist in the films. Just some vague disillusionment with the Jedi and the Republic.

They at one point tried to say that Dooku left because of the "pointless" death of Qui-Gon Jinn. At least, that was supposed to be the tipping point. However, within a very short time of that, he went Sith, killed off a friend (Sifo Dyas), arranged for the maiming/cyborg reconstruction of Greivous, and started the whole Clone scheme. So, either he had spent a long while growing in disillusionment (which would have been a better background), or he just went nuts and snapped like a corny comic villain (which is more typical Lucas storytelling).

[KingCheops]

It would be nice if at least someone on the Jedi Council were to refuse to support slavery and resign.

It's an aristocratic society. Someone will be at the bottom, and they will have extremely limited rights, whether they're called slaves, serfs - or clones. And those at the top will congratulate themselves on their magnanimity even as they take a drink from the tray of a passing slave. "We rule for their good, really. It's the natural order of things."

The primary reason why Count Dooku joined the Separatists in canon was that he was protesting the excesses of the Republic and the Jedi's involvement in politics when it suited them.

Was that in the cartoons or something? I don't remember them specifying why Dooku was a seperatist in the films. Just some vague disillusionment with the Jedi and the Republic.

Check out the script for Dooku: Jedi Lost which was turned into a novel.  It's Asajj Ventress doing a mission for her master Dooku but in the course of doing that he leaves memoirs and recollections of his life for her to view which explain his training and background.  It actually covers some of the stuff that people are complaining about in this thread.

Lucas only had 3 movies for the Prequel and had a lot of ground to cover.  There just plain wasn't time for it all.  For instance see the deleted scene that's still canon of Jocasta Nu talking about Dooku with Obi-wan.

At this point the main tent pole movies cover a period of about 100 years and 100's of characters.  There's loads of stuff that didn't make it into movies that provides a lot of the background on things.  I know that its not incumbent on the viewers to keep up with all of this but there's usually an answer to all the questions already.  Movies are made to explain a specific point in time and a specific theme.  Its not efficient to cover every facet of every period and culture we encounter in each one.  Its why we don't get a long monologue about the Geonosian culture while Obi-wan et al are chained in the arena.

[Ratman_tf]

It would be nice if at least someone on the Jedi Council were to refuse to support slavery and resign.

It's an aristocratic society. Someone will be at the bottom, and they will have extremely limited rights, whether they're called slaves, serfs - or clones. And those at the top will congratulate themselves on their magnanimity even as they take a drink from the tray of a passing slave. "We rule for their good, really. It's the natural order of things."

The primary reason why Count Dooku joined the Separatists in canon was that he was protesting the excesses of the Republic and the Jedi's involvement in politics when it suited them.

Was that in the cartoons or something? I don't remember them specifying why Dooku was a seperatist in the films. Just some vague disillusionment with the Jedi and the Republic.

Check out the script for Dooku: Jedi Lost which was turned into a novel.  It's Asajj Ventress doing a mission for her master Dooku but in the course of doing that he leaves memoirs and recollections of his life for her to view which explain his training and background.  It actually covers some of the stuff that people are complaining about in this thread.

Lucas only had 3 movies for the Prequel and had a lot of ground to cover.  There just plain wasn't time for it all.  For instance see the deleted scene that's still canon of Jocasta Nu talking about Dooku with Obi-wan.

At this point the main tent pole movies cover a period of about 100 years and 100's of characters.  There's loads of stuff that didn't make it into movies that provides a lot of the background on things.  I know that its not incumbent on the viewers to keep up with all of this but there's usually an answer to all the questions already.  Movies are made to explain a specific point in time and a specific theme.  Its not efficient to cover every facet of every period and culture we encounter in each one.  Its why we don't get a long monologue about the Geonosian culture while Obi-wan et al are chained in the arena.

Eh. I tend to avoid EU type stuff, especially novels.

I agree, not everything needs to be spelled out in the films. I can plug some gaps with my own imagination. But there's a lot of dangling questions about details in the prequels that people hash over to this day, because they're rather important to motivations and justifications for events in the films.

[jhkim]

It would be nice if at least someone on the Jedi Council were to refuse to support slavery and resign.

It's an aristocratic society. Someone will be at the bottom, and they will have extremely limited rights, whether they're called slaves, serfs - or clones. And those at the top will congratulate themselves on their magnanimity even as they take a drink from the tray of a passing slave. "We rule for their good, really. It's the natural order of things."

The primary reason why Count Dooku joined the Separatists in canon was that he was protesting the excesses of the Republic and the Jedi's involvement in politics when it suited them.

There are other pulp portrayals of aristocratic societies where the heroes don't seem like slave-holding scum - like Robin Hood or the Three Musketeers. In the original Star Wars trilogy, Obi Wan, Leia, and Yoda didn't come across this way.

Within the prequels, Count Dooku is a blatant pulp villain complete with all the trappings - including cruelly and ineffectively sending the heroes to die in a monster arena. I don't recall him having any coherent criticism of the Jedi council in the prequel movies - and even if he did, using him as a mouthpiece for saying such is a piss-poor choice.

I can deal with the heroes having the tragic flaw of wanting to use their slave army - but *someone* should point it out as a moral flaw. (Like Othello being told to not be a violent jealous murderer, or King Lear being told to not be an arrogant dumbass.)

EDIT: fixed typo

[KingCheops]

It would be nice if at least someone on the Jedi Council were to refuse to support slavery and resign.

It's an aristocratic society. Someone will be at the bottom, and they will have extremely limited rights, whether they're called slaves, serfs - or clones. And those at the top will congratulate themselves on their magnanimity even as they take a drink from the tray of a passing slave. "We rule for their good, really. It's the natural order of things."

Yes understandable.  I think the issue was scope.  Lucas does really well with narrow films -- Original Trilogy and Indiana Jones -- but the Prequel Trilogy was just so big a bite to take that there's these gaps.  He's not the greatest writer so sometimes it takes a back seat to his world building (and toy selling) ideas.
The primary reason why Count Dooku joined the Separatists in canon was that he was protesting the excesses of the Republic and the Jedi's involvement in politics when it suited them.

Was that in the cartoons or something? I don't remember them specifying why Dooku was a seperatist in the films. Just some vague disillusionment with the Jedi and the Republic.

Check out the script for Dooku: Jedi Lost which was turned into a novel.  It's Asajj Ventress doing a mission for her master Dooku but in the course of doing that he leaves memoirs and recollections of his life for her to view which explain his training and background.  It actually covers some of the stuff that people are complaining about in this thread.

Lucas only had 3 movies for the Prequel and had a lot of ground to cover.  There just plain wasn't time for it all.  For instance see the deleted scene that's still canon of Jocasta Nu talking about Dooku with Obi-wan.

At this point the main tent pole movies cover a period of about 100 years and 100's of characters.  There's loads of stuff that didn't make it into movies that provides a lot of the background on things.  I know that its not incumbent on the viewers to keep up with all of this but there's usually an answer to all the questions already.  Movies are made to explain a specific point in time and a specific theme.  Its not efficient to cover every facet of every period and culture we encounter in each one.  Its why we don't get a long monologue about the Geonosian culture while Obi-wan et al are chained in the arena.

Eh. I tend to avoid EU type stuff, especially novels.

I agree, not everything needs to be spelled out in the films. I can plug some gaps with my own imagination. But there's a lot of dangling questions about details in the prequels that people hash over to this day, because they're rather important to motivations and justifications for events in the films.

[David Johansen]

I always feel Star Wars could use just a little more exposition here and there.  Not, massive doses of Star Trek style babble, but just a word or two on why you can see the other planets of the New Republic blowing up all the way over here.  Somehow, the first time I watched The Force Awakens I thought the New Order launched hologram projecting satellites but it wasn't there the second time I watched it.  I haven't bothered to watch the other two sequels twice.

I suspect Dooku left because he was arrogant and they wouldn't make him a master and there was Palpatine slowly whittling away at his ideals and building up The Republic's faults while suggesting other ways.  Quigon might have been closer to falling than we know, he was often at odds with the council.

[Kyle Aaron]

There are other pulp portrayals of aristocratic societies where the heroes don't seem like slave-holding scum - like Robin Hood or the Three Musketeers.

Yes. Those are aristocratic societies, but the heroes are not on the top of those societies. They're either subversives or enforcers of some kind for the elites.

[KingCheops]

I suspect Dooku left because he was arrogant and they wouldn't make him a master and there was Palpatine slowly whittling away at his ideals and building up The Republic's faults while suggesting other ways.  Quigon might have been closer to falling than we know, he was often at odds with the council.

In the movies they do actually mention that he was a Master who left.  The deleted scene expands on it a bit more because they have bronze busts of the "Lost Masters" in the Library because there were only ever 13 Masters that left the Jedi Order.

The specifics are detailed in Dooku: Jedi Lost.  Lets just say he saw a lot of corruption and unwillingness to act amongst the Jedi.

[jhkim]

There are other pulp portrayals of aristocratic societies where the heroes don't seem like slave-holding scum - like Robin Hood or the Three Musketeers.

Yes. Those are aristocratic societies, but the heroes are not on the top of those societies. They're either subversives or enforcers of some kind for the elites.

Details of Robin vary, but in the most popular portrayals (including Flynn, Disney, Costner), Robin is Sir Robin of Loxley - a noble who could have enjoyed his privileges if he cooperated with the Sheriff, but instead chose to throw his lot in with outlaws. The musketeers are all of at least noble birth, and Athos is a count.

But really, that's beside the point. The point is that they are popular portrayals of aristocratic societies in older pulp stories that Star Wars draws from, and they have heroes that speak out against slavery and oppression. In pulp stories, the heroes would stand up for truth, justice, and freedom for all. In the original series, it seemed like the Jedi fought for a democratic society - it was called a Republic, and their philosophy seemed egalitarian in respecting all life - in contrast to the Empire. Luke had no idea who Yoda was because he was expecting what he imagined as a great and noble warrior, but actually Yoda was a small and humble creature who seems content in his hut.

[David Johansen]

"Content in his hut?"  Yoda is Sideshow Bob plotting his revenge in mini-storage.

[jhkim]

"Content in his hut?"  Yoda is Sideshow Bob plotting his revenge in mini-storage.

Dude - I'm not saying that Yoda didn't intend to act against the Empire. I'm saying that his *lifestyle* doesn't seem like he is a rich aristocrat on hard times - longing to get back his riches. i.e. He seems more like Robin Hood living a simple life rather than an aristocratic general of a slave army.

It is technically consistent that in his earlier life he could have been a slave-driving warmonger, but there is no sign of that in the original trilogy.


EDITED TO ADD: The point is that in the original trilogy, the good guys stood up for truth, justice, and freedom. It would have been against the ethos of the original trilogy for someone to suggest using a slave army to defeat the Empire - even though it was an even more desperate struggle than the Separatists in the prequels.

[Ratman_tf]

"Content in his hut?"  Yoda is Sideshow Bob plotting his revenge in mini-storage.

Dude - I'm not saying that Yoda didn't intend to act against the Empire. I'm saying that his *lifestyle* doesn't seem like he is a rich aristocrat on hard times - longing to get back his riches. i.e. He seems more like Robin Hood living a simple life rather than an aristocratic general of a slave army.

It is technically consistent that in his earlier life he could have been a slave-driving warmonger, but there is no sign of that in the original trilogy.


EDITED TO ADD: The point is that in the original trilogy, the good guys stood up for truth, justice, and freedom. It would have been against the ethos of the original trilogy for someone to suggest using a slave army to defeat the Empire - even though it was an even more desperate struggle than the Separatists in the prequels.

The Rebellion didn't have a Senate to answer to for their actions. By their very name and definition, they were finally fed up with doing thing legally and were going to get some guns and ships and kill the Empire and damn the collateral damage and political fallout.
Just as the PT sanitized the use of a slave army, the OT sanitized the type of guerrlia war the Rebellion would have been fighting. They kinda sorta address this decades later, in Rogue One, after Lucas sold the franchise, and only dip their toe in. Like the Cartoons dipping their toe into the morality of using a slave army.