Kanann had more confidence in him self and did not let the Inquisitor cause self doubt.

I find the style of the hilts of Asoka's lightsabers interesting. The slight curve seems like a nod to the Japanese Daisho (Katana and Wakizashi set), one larger and the other smaller (shoto) reinforces that image.

Considering the Grand inquisitor was taken out fairly easily by a Jedi Padawan when that Padawan had some confidence in himself tells me that no he did not have much skill. He may have had some knowledge of the forms. But that doesn't mean much really.

He had skill but he's a villain soooooooo sooner or later he's going to be defeated for good. And the way he was defeated wasn't so much that Kanan became more skilled than him but Kanan took better advantage of his surroundings and didn't monologue so much. And much like most villains his skills remained static while Kanan was shown to consistently be growing in lightsabre skill.

It would be easier to judge his skill if he had faced off against Ashoka like the other two did, but considering what we saw he was pretty good in lightsabre combat. And if he had not been making poor positioning choices and being over confident I think he'd of likely beat Kanan in that fight too. He just stands there while Kanan places his blades between his lightsabre and does nothing. Kanan even waited a few seconds before striking (which I find terrible odd for a character to do). Even then the Inquisitor just drops to his death. He made the choice to just die as opposed to Force leaping over Kanan (in a fashion similar to Obi Wan when he was in a similar position). The fact that the way to defeating him focused more on making better use of the scenery as opposed to straight up skill indicates, to me at least, that Kanan didn't win due to being more skilled but to being better able to take advantage of his surroundings.

As the seasons big bad and as a way to open the story up to introduce Vader he had to die, eventually. His defeat was inevitable, and Kanan getting better than him was inevitable. But overall compared to what we've seen on the show, outside of actual trained Jedi he was pretty skilled.

You are tending to argue from an audience point of view, rather than in-universe when you say things like "He had skill but he's a villain soooooooo sooner or later he's going to be defeated for good". Yes, this is true, but it's not an in-universe explanation which is what is needed when you're saying that character X is better at something than character Y. Sure, the writers may want the Grand Inquisitor to lose to Kanan, but it's still done by in-universe making Kanan capable of beating the Inquisitor by skill. You say it was through better use of the surroundings, but actually their final confrontation is all about straight-up skill. Here is the battle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufNAx8JzhO8

There's no point where Kanan is winning due to "taking greater advantage of his surroundings". He's holding his own quite capably in a straight-up duel before Ezra joins and after he thinks Ezra is dead (around 1:43), he just straight up bests him. Ezra watching the duel comments that Kanan is doing better than the Inquisitor and all they're doing is swordplay. The only particular "use of surroundings" I see is when the Inquisitor (not Kanan) tries to get shelter by hopping into the middle of those computer console doughnuts which is a momentary thing anyway. What are you talking about in this video?

Fact of the matter is that in-universe, Kanan is a padawan who recently restarted training and he is the equal of the Grand Inquisitor.

I find the style of the hilts of Asoka's lightsabers interesting. The slight curve seems like a nod to the Japanese Daisho (Katana and Wakizashi set), one larger and the other smaller (shoto) reinforces that image.

I think Ahsoka's whole image is designed to invoke a sort of samurai-feel. Which fits as she is akin to ronin in the time frame of the show; she doesn't have a "master" per se, but still holds herself to the code and values instilled in her back when served.

I find the style of the hilts of Asoka's lightsabers interesting. The slight curve seems like a nod to the Japanese Daisho (Katana and Wakizashi set), one larger and the other smaller (shoto) reinforces that image.

I love that they're white. It fits thematically with the way she left the Jedi order. She's not a Jedi, she's less encumbered by dogma or a Sith-Jedi dichotomy. White suggests purity and transcendence. For me she's moved beyond Jedi religion, (without disparaging or entirely rejecting it) and found a path that is more free, yet not the slavery to emotions that is Sith, either.

Whilst at a factual level the colour of a lightsabre is based on the type of crystal, thematically it has always been a representation of a Jedi's personality / emotions / spiritual nature. Luke starts off with light blue, which is a very hopeful, open colour - a searching, seeking colour, like an open sky. By Ep. VI it has become green - a more enclosed colour, suggesting nature (protection and growth) and safety. It's a guarding sort of colour. Sith and Ventress of course wield red blades - a colour of passion, emotion, anger and blood. It needs no explanation. Mace Windu's sabre was purple - interesting, the only light colour that seems dark, closest to ultraviolet (black light). It is also the colour of emperors. Purple suggests power, complexity and because it is a colour that includes red within it, still has that hint of the more passionate emotions. It suggests Mace is a Jedi who walks in darkness to some extent, spiritually speaking. White of course is all colours in one - balance, purity, ascension. We've only ever seen this once with Ahsoka and it's telling that it is on someone who was a Jedi, completed their training, yet refused the rank of knight and looked beyond their own order for answers.

So yeah, I really like the white blades for Ahsoka.

I liked the episode. Ahsoka could show that she is (still) badass, we had some nice character moments and a hook for more action later. The preview of next episode showed us Ezra doing some power moves - nice! I like that most characters in the series are actually changing over time and that the storytelling is not that static (for the standards of a such a short animated series).

Considering the Grand inquisitor was taken out fairly easily by a Jedi Padawan when that Padawan had some confidence in himself tells me that no he did not have much skill. He may have had some knowledge of the forms. But that doesn't mean much really.

He had skill but he's a villain soooooooo sooner or later he's going to be defeated for good. And the way he was defeated wasn't so much that Kanan became more skilled than him but Kanan took better advantage of his surroundings and didn't monologue so much. And much like most villains his skills remained static while Kanan was shown to consistently be growing in lightsabre skill.

It would be easier to judge his skill if he had faced off against Ashoka like the other two did, but considering what we saw he was pretty good in lightsabre combat. And if he had not been making poor positioning choices and being over confident I think he'd of likely beat Kanan in that fight too. He just stands there while Kanan places his blades between his lightsabre and does nothing. Kanan even waited a few seconds before striking (which I find terrible odd for a character to do). Even then the Inquisitor just drops to his death. He made the choice to just die as opposed to Force leaping over Kanan (in a fashion similar to Obi Wan when he was in a similar position). The fact that the way to defeating him focused more on making better use of the scenery as opposed to straight up skill indicates, to me at least, that Kanan didn't win due to being more skilled but to being better able to take advantage of his surroundings.

As the seasons big bad and as a way to open the story up to introduce Vader he had to die, eventually. His defeat was inevitable, and Kanan getting better than him was inevitable. But overall compared to what we've seen on the show, outside of actual trained Jedi he was pretty skilled.

You are tending to argue from an audience point of view, rather than in-universe when you say things like "He had skill but he's a villain soooooooo sooner or later he's going to be defeated for good". Yes, this is true, but it's not an in-universe explanation which is what is needed when you're saying that character X is better at something than character Y. Sure, the writers may want the Grand Inquisitor to lose to Kanan, but it's still done by in-universe making Kanan capable of beating the Inquisitor by skill. You say it was through better use of the surroundings, but actually their final confrontation is all about straight-up skill. Here is the battle:

I mention the audience point of view because the audience point of view has a bigger determining effect on who wins the fight than whether or not the people in the fight are skilled. If the story says someone loses they lose no matter how skilled they are. We see this dynamic all the time in the Clone Wars. Ventress floats between being more than competent to fight both Obi Wan and Anakin at the same time to not being able to. Dooku easily holds his own throughout most encounters with Anakin and Obi Wan but has to retreat from Ventress and Savage. Savage should be nowhere near the skill level of Anakin or Obi Wan (and Dooku should have handed him his ass) but yet he seems to easily take down a more experienced Jedi. Ventress could take on Obi Wan and Anakin at the same time but was also shown having trouble dealing with Ashoka at times. Ashoka does a very good job of holding her own against Grevious who had been depicted having no trouble in taking down Jedi of higher skill level than a padawan. The inconsistency in skill level across the board is dictated by what the story needs of that fight. Thus the Grand Inquisitor, who was depicted as being very skilled loses to Kanan. Kanan did get better, don't get me wrong, but the defeat of the Grand Inquisitor isn't a reflection of his skill level but the needs of the story. If we look at all the Jedi fights through the life of TCW we'll see highly skilled people sink in overall skill level based on the needs of the story and I think this situation with the Grand Inquisitor is just more of the same, the needs of the story trump the actual depection of the characters skill level in previous encounters.

There really is no good in universe explanation. Not when we consider the fights we've seen. So we have to accept that even skilled characters are defeated, not because they are less skilled, but mostly because the story says so.

Considering the Grand inquisitor was taken out fairly easily by a Jedi Padawan when that Padawan had some confidence in himself tells me that no he did not have much skill. He may have had some knowledge of the forms. But that doesn't mean much really.

He had skill but he's a villain soooooooo sooner or later he's going to be defeated for good. And the way he was defeated wasn't so much that Kanan became more skilled than him but Kanan took better advantage of his surroundings and didn't monologue so much. And much like most villains his skills remained static while Kanan was shown to consistently be growing in lightsabre skill.

It would be easier to judge his skill if he had faced off against Ashoka like the other two did, but considering what we saw he was pretty good in lightsabre combat. And if he had not been making poor positioning choices and being over confident I think he'd of likely beat Kanan in that fight too. He just stands there while Kanan places his blades between his lightsabre and does nothing. Kanan even waited a few seconds before striking (which I find terrible odd for a character to do). Even then the Inquisitor just drops to his death. He made the choice to just die as opposed to Force leaping over Kanan (in a fashion similar to Obi Wan when he was in a similar position). The fact that the way to defeating him focused more on making better use of the scenery as opposed to straight up skill indicates, to me at least, that Kanan didn't win due to being more skilled but to being better able to take advantage of his surroundings.

As the seasons big bad and as a way to open the story up to introduce Vader he had to die, eventually. His defeat was inevitable, and Kanan getting better than him was inevitable. But overall compared to what we've seen on the show, outside of actual trained Jedi he was pretty skilled.

You are tending to argue from an audience point of view, rather than in-universe when you say things like "He had skill but he's a villain soooooooo sooner or later he's going to be defeated for good". Yes, this is true, but it's not an in-universe explanation which is what is needed when you're saying that character X is better at something than character Y. Sure, the writers may want the Grand Inquisitor to lose to Kanan, but it's still done by in-universe making Kanan capable of beating the Inquisitor by skill. You say it was through better use of the surroundings, but actually their final confrontation is all about straight-up skill. Here is the battle:

I mention the audience point of view because the audience point of view has a bigger determining effect on who wins the fight than whether or not the people in the fight are skilled. If the story says someone loses they lose no matter how skilled they are. We see this dynamic all the time in the Clone Wars. Ventress floats between being more than competent to fight both Obi Wan and Anakin at the same time to not being able to. Dooku easily holds his own throughout most encounters with Anakin and Obi Wan but has to retreat from Ventress and Savage. Savage should be nowhere near the skill level of Anakin or Obi Wan (and Dooku should have handed him his ass) but yet he seems to easily take down a more experienced Jedi. Ventress could take on Obi Wan and Anakin at the same time but was also shown having trouble dealing with Ashoka at times. Ashoka does a very good job of holding her own against Grevious who had been depicted having no trouble in taking down Jedi of higher skill level than a padawan. The inconsistency in skill level across the board is dictated by what the story needs of that fight. Thus the Grand Inquisitor, who was depicted as being very skilled loses to Kanan. Kanan did get better, don't get me wrong, but the defeat of the Grand Inquisitor isn't a reflection of his skill level but the needs of the story. If we look at all the Jedi fights through the life of TCW we'll see highly skilled people sink in overall skill level based on the needs of the story and I think this situation with the Grand Inquisitor is just more of the same, the needs of the story trump the actual depection of the characters skill level in previous encounters.

There really is no good in universe explanation. Not when we consider the fights we've seen. So we have to accept that even skilled characters are defeated, not because they are less skilled, but mostly because the story says so.

Having actual done a fair bit of sword fighting I can tell you there are days I do better and days I don't do as well. I have had days where I beat my instructor 5 times in a row and days where I couldn't cut my way out of a wet paper bag. So all of those variation with Anakin and Obi-wan and Ventress and Dooku etc. are perfectly reasonable when you realize people have off days and on days. Days where they are able to focus and days where they have trouble doing so.

Considering the Grand inquisitor was taken out fairly easily by a Jedi Padawan when that Padawan had some confidence in himself tells me that no he did not have much skill. He may have had some knowledge of the forms. But that doesn't mean much really.

He had skill but he's a villain soooooooo sooner or later he's going to be defeated for good. And the way he was defeated wasn't so much that Kanan became more skilled than him but Kanan took better advantage of his surroundings and didn't monologue so much. And much like most villains his skills remained static while Kanan was shown to consistently be growing in lightsabre skill.

It would be easier to judge his skill if he had faced off against Ashoka like the other two did, but considering what we saw he was pretty good in lightsabre combat. And if he had not been making poor positioning choices and being over confident I think he'd of likely beat Kanan in that fight too. He just stands there while Kanan places his blades between his lightsabre and does nothing. Kanan even waited a few seconds before striking (which I find terrible odd for a character to do). Even then the Inquisitor just drops to his death. He made the choice to just die as opposed to Force leaping over Kanan (in a fashion similar to Obi Wan when he was in a similar position). The fact that the way to defeating him focused more on making better use of the scenery as opposed to straight up skill indicates, to me at least, that Kanan didn't win due to being more skilled but to being better able to take advantage of his surroundings.

As the seasons big bad and as a way to open the story up to introduce Vader he had to die, eventually. His defeat was inevitable, and Kanan getting better than him was inevitable. But overall compared to what we've seen on the show, outside of actual trained Jedi he was pretty skilled.

You are tending to argue from an audience point of view, rather than in-universe when you say things like "He had skill but he's a villain soooooooo sooner or later he's going to be defeated for good". Yes, this is true, but it's not an in-universe explanation which is what is needed when you're saying that character X is better at something than character Y. Sure, the writers may want the Grand Inquisitor to lose to Kanan, but it's still done by in-universe making Kanan capable of beating the Inquisitor by skill. You say it was through better use of the surroundings, but actually their final confrontation is all about straight-up skill. Here is the battle:

I mention the audience point of view because the audience point of view has a bigger determining effect on who wins the fight than whether or not the people in the fight are skilled. If the story says someone loses they lose no matter how skilled they are. We see this dynamic all the time in the Clone Wars. Ventress floats between being more than competent to fight both Obi Wan and Anakin at the same time to not being able to. Dooku easily holds his own throughout most encounters with Anakin and Obi Wan but has to retreat from Ventress and Savage. Savage should be nowhere near the skill level of Anakin or Obi Wan (and Dooku should have handed him his ass) but yet he seems to easily take down a more experienced Jedi. Ventress could take on Obi Wan and Anakin at the same time but was also shown having trouble dealing with Ashoka at times. Ashoka does a very good job of holding her own against Grevious who had been depicted having no trouble in taking down Jedi of higher skill level than a padawan. The inconsistency in skill level across the board is dictated by what the story needs of that fight. Thus the Grand Inquisitor, who was depicted as being very skilled loses to Kanan. Kanan did get better, don't get me wrong, but the defeat of the Grand Inquisitor isn't a reflection of his skill level but the needs of the story. If we look at all the Jedi fights through the life of TCW we'll see highly skilled people sink in overall skill level based on the needs of the story and I think this situation with the Grand Inquisitor is just more of the same, the needs of the story trump the actual depection of the characters skill level in previous encounters.

There really is no good in universe explanation. Not when we consider the fights we've seen. So we have to accept that even skilled characters are defeated, not because they are less skilled, but mostly because the story says so.

Having actual done a fair bit of sword fighting I can tell you there are days I do better and days I don't do as well. I have had days where I beat my instructor 5 times in a row and days where I couldn't cut my way out of a wet paper bag. So all of those variation with Anakin and Obi-wan and Ventress and Dooku etc. are perfectly reasonable when you realize people have off days and on days. Days where they are able to focus and days where they have trouble doing so.

And that's great, but for the characters in the show, their good days and bad days are dictated by the writers and not by the actual characters. So, who wins a fight? Depends on who is writing the show. Same with any other argument about two hypothetical characters (superman v batman, hulk v iron man, pirates v ninjas)...

Having actual done a fair bit of sword fighting I can tell you there are days I do better and days I don't do as well. I have had days where I beat my instructor 5 times in a row and days where I couldn't cut my way out of a wet paper bag. So all of those variation with Anakin and Obi-wan and Ventress and Dooku etc. are perfectly reasonable when you realize people have off days and on days. Days where they are able to focus and days where they have trouble doing so.

Which is true. But by the logic you just provided it is equally true then that the Grand Inquisitor was simply having an off day and that's why he lost to Kanan, and not because he was less skilled, as has been floated about.

Hes dead...definitely an off day. But looking at his technique it was a lot more bluster than skill.

EDIT: I found someone has already put the fight on YouTube. Don't know if Disney will ask for it to be taken down or if just this scene is okay, but here it is:

Look at the way Ahsoka takes Fifth Brother out of the action so easily and then sits down into a battle meditation right in the middle of the fight. Those Inquisitors have egos that would choke a Sarlacc!

I'm especially fond of the casual way in which she seems to brush Fifth Brother out of the way.

I know I said this already, but it's hilarious how ineffective the inquisitors are against a real Jedi (which I consider Ahsoka to easily be the equal of). Watch the battle again and notice how the male inquisitor just throws his weapon at her which she just leaps up and it passes harmlessly underneath her feet. She lands calmly and he's now unarmed. Idiot! And when she turns off her sabres and kneels down with her eyes closed just waiting? If an NPC my group were fighting did that, then they'd be running as fast as they could in the other direction. When your opponent closes their eyes and calmly smiles, it NEVER ends well for you.

I'unno, ended pretty well for Vader when Obi-Wan did it.

I find the style of the hilts of Asoka's lightsabers interesting. The slight curve seems like a nod to the Japanese Daisho (Katana and Wakizashi set), one larger and the other smaller (shoto) reinforces that image.

I believe that Ahsoka used a shorter lightsaber in TCW. In legends, a shorter lightsaber was called a 'shoto' lightsaber. And in RPGs, like the old d20 WOTC Star Wars RPG (and Knights of the Old Republic and KOTOR2 , which use systems based on d20), there were mechanical advantages to utilizing a 'shoto' lightsaber with a regular lightsaber (in the same manner as utilizing a short sword/dagger/knife and a one-handed sword/bastard sword/rapier in D&D).

I find the style of the hilts of Asoka's lightsabers interesting. The slight curve seems like a nod to the Japanese Daisho (Katana and Wakizashi set), one larger and the other smaller (shoto) reinforces that image.

I love that they're white. It fits thematically with the way she left the Jedi order. She's not a Jedi, she's less encumbered by dogma or a Sith-Jedi dichotomy. White suggests purity and transcendence. For me she's moved beyond Jedi religion, (without disparaging or entirely rejecting it) and found a path that is more free, yet not the slavery to emotions that is Sith, either.

Whilst at a factual level the colour of a lightsabre is based on the type of crystal, thematically it has always been a representation of a Jedi's personality / emotions / spiritual nature. Luke starts off with light blue, which is a very hopeful, open colour - a searching, seeking colour, like an open sky. By Ep. VI it has become green - a more enclosed colour, suggesting nature (protection and growth) and safety. It's a guarding sort of colour. Sith and Ventress of course wield red blades - a colour of passion, emotion, anger and blood. It needs no explanation. Mace Windu's sabre was purple - interesting, the only light colour that seems dark, closest to ultraviolet (black light). It is also the colour of emperors. Purple suggests power, complexity and because it is a colour that includes red within it, still has that hint of the more passionate emotions. It suggests Mace is a Jedi who walks in darkness to some extent, spiritually speaking. White of course is all colours in one - balance, purity, ascension. We've only ever seen this once with Ahsoka and it's telling that it is on someone who was a Jedi, completed their training, yet refused the rank of knight and looked beyond their own order for answers.

So yeah, I really like the white blades for Ahsoka.

I seem to recall reading that the white blades were chosen to represent Ahsoka's status as a grey Jedi.

Grey Jedi FTW.

And now, of course, we have a canon color for grey Jedi lightsabers.

I find the style of the hilts of Asoka's lightsabers interesting. The slight curve seems like a nod to the Japanese Daisho (Katana and Wakizashi set), one larger and the other smaller (shoto) reinforces that image.

I believe that Ahsoka used a shorter lightsaber in TCW. In legends, a shorter lightsaber was called a 'shoto' lightsaber. And in RPGs, like the old d20 WOTC Star Wars RPG (and Knights of the Old Republic and KOTOR2 , which use systems based on d20), there were mechanical advantages to utilizing a 'shoto' lightsaber with a regular lightsaber (in the same manner as utilizing a short sword/dagger/knife and a one-handed sword/bastard sword/rapier in D&D).

She did indeed, but then both her sabers had straight hilts. She obviously had to create new lightsabers after leaving the order. The slight curved hilts are just an interesting touch. The curve is not nearly as much as in Dooku's hilt.

I know I said this already, but it's hilarious how ineffective the inquisitors are against a real Jedi (which I consider Ahsoka to easily be the equal of). Watch the battle again and notice how the male inquisitor just throws his weapon at her which she just leaps up and it passes harmlessly underneath her feet. She lands calmly and he's now unarmed. Idiot! And when she turns off her sabres and kneels down with her eyes closed just waiting? If an NPC my group were fighting did that, then they'd be running as fast as they could in the other direction. When your opponent closes their eyes and calmly smiles, it NEVER ends well for you.

I'unno, ended pretty well for Vader when Obi-Wan did it.

Ha! But that wasn't the end, that was only the beginning. It inspired and freed Luke to go on and become what he did, it led to Obi Wan becoming a Force Ghost... Nah, in the grand chess game, Obi Wan made a good move, there. I imagine it fair put the wind up Anakin as well, who probably had no idea what just happened. (Even Yoda only finds out about Force Ghosts near the end of TCW and the other counsel members are pretty hesitant to believe that someone can persist after death. And even if Palpatine knows of such things (again, if Yoda didn't Palpatine probably didn't) it's unlikely to be the sort of thing he'd teach Anakin!

I seem to recall reading that the white blades were chosen to represent Ahsoka's status as a grey Jedi.

Grey Jedi FTW.

I personally don't like the term Grey Jedi or applying it to Ahsoka. Grey Jedi implies to me something half-way between a normal (presumably Light) Jedi and a Dark Jedi, like Dooku. Essentially an anti-hero archetype, your Jack Bauer bad things for good purposes idea. I don't think that fits well with Star Wars where Ends Justifies the Means is the first step on the road to destruction whether you're Anakin, Dooku, Bariss or anyone else. One of the clear motifs of Star Wars has been that Good Intentions are not sufficient to protect against compromising of principles. And I really don't see Ahsoka acting like that anyway. She's out and out hero stuff. More so than most of the original Jedi in fact. But I'm not really familiar with Legends where I presume Grey Jedi come from, so if I have inferred incorrect things from just the name, I could be wrong. Ahsoka doesn't consider herself a Jedi as she says in the episode.

Considering the Grand inquisitor was taken out fairly easily by a Jedi Padawan when that Padawan had some confidence in himself tells me that no he did not have much skill. He may have had some knowledge of the forms. But that doesn't mean much really.

He had skill but he's a villain soooooooo sooner or later he's going to be defeated for good. And the way he was defeated wasn't so much that Kanan became more skilled than him but Kanan took better advantage of his surroundings and didn't monologue so much. And much like most villains his skills remained static while Kanan was shown to consistently be growing in lightsabre skill.

It would be easier to judge his skill if he had faced off against Ashoka like the other two did, but considering what we saw he was pretty good in lightsabre combat. And if he had not been making poor positioning choices and being over confident I think he'd of likely beat Kanan in that fight too. He just stands there while Kanan places his blades between his lightsabre and does nothing. Kanan even waited a few seconds before striking (which I find terrible odd for a character to do). Even then the Inquisitor just drops to his death. He made the choice to just die as opposed to Force leaping over Kanan (in a fashion similar to Obi Wan when he was in a similar position). The fact that the way to defeating him focused more on making better use of the scenery as opposed to straight up skill indicates, to me at least, that Kanan didn't win due to being more skilled but to being better able to take advantage of his surroundings.

As the seasons big bad and as a way to open the story up to introduce Vader he had to die, eventually. His defeat was inevitable, and Kanan getting better than him was inevitable. But overall compared to what we've seen on the show, outside of actual trained Jedi he was pretty skilled.

You are tending to argue from an audience point of view, rather than in-universe when you say things like "He had skill but he's a villain soooooooo sooner or later he's going to be defeated for good". Yes, this is true, but it's not an in-universe explanation which is what is needed when you're saying that character X is better at something than character Y. Sure, the writers may want the Grand Inquisitor to lose to Kanan, but it's still done by in-universe making Kanan capable of beating the Inquisitor by skill. You say it was through better use of the surroundings, but actually their final confrontation is all about straight-up skill. Here is the battle:

I mention the audience point of view because the audience point of view has a bigger determining effect on who wins the fight than whether or not the people in the fight are skilled.

The above is an argument that there doesn't need to be an in-universe reason for something if the just writers want something. That doesn't follow. If we're arguing which is most skilled between two characters, a position of "this character is more skilled but they lost because the writer said so" doesn't work. The writer did want them to lose, but the in-universe reason has to be in-universe by definition. No character in a movie answers "why did you do that?" with "I was just written that way." Well, except for Jessica Rabbit. You did attempt to provide in-universe reasons - for example you claimed that Kanan won because of their better use of surroundings, but I'm still waiting for you to show where in the clip that is true.

Watch the clip - what we see is Kanan besting the Grand Inquisitor with skill vs. skill. That's not an escapable thing.

As to the rest of your post, you're essentially attempting to argue that if there are inconsistencies in another show, we can throw out the principle of in-universe effect requiring an in-universe cause anywhere we like. You're not really arguing that Kanan isn't more skilled than the Grand Inquisitor, you're arguing that you think this should be the case and it's okay to reject in-universe evidence that undermines this because it's really just a script someone has written. This is bogus reasoning. To argue about something that is an in-universe reality, there needs to be in-universe evidence. One can interpret a work at a Watsonian level or a Doylist level, but by definition the Watsonian position cannot incorporate Doylist viewpoints. To the characters in the series, Kanan was the more skilful; and it is meaningless to argue that Kanan was only more skilful from the point of view of people within the reality of the setting but not outside it, because from outside, he's just a fiction.

I find the style of the hilts of Asoka's lightsabers interesting. The slight curve seems like a nod to the Japanese Daisho (Katana and Wakizashi set), one larger and the other smaller (shoto) reinforces that image.

I believe that Ahsoka used a shorter lightsaber in TCW. In legends, a shorter lightsaber was called a 'shoto' lightsaber. And in RPGs, like the old d20 WOTC Star Wars RPG (and Knights of the Old Republic and KOTOR2 , which use systems based on d20), there were mechanical advantages to utilizing a 'shoto' lightsaber with a regular lightsaber (in the same manner as utilizing a short sword/dagger/knife and a one-handed sword/bastard sword/rapier in D&D).

She did indeed, but then both her sabers had straight hilts. She obviously had to create new lightsabers after leaving the order. The slight curved hilts are just an interesting touch. The curve is not nearly as much as in Dooku's hilt.

I believe that I also read that Ahsoka did not construct her post-expulsion lightsabers but found them in an ancient Jedi temple. Dooku's hilt is supposed to be geared more toward dueling other lightsaber users. So it's possible that Ahsoka's lightsabers date from a period when that style of fighting may have been on the rise and the Jedi were chiefly combatting ancient Sith and/or other Jedi sects and orders, including Dark Jedi.

I personally don't like the term Grey Jedi or applying it to Ahsoka. Grey Jedi implies to me something half-way between a normal (presumably Light) Jedi and a Dark Jedi, like Dooku. Essentially an anti-hero archetype, your Jack Bauer bad things for good purposes idea. I don't think that fits well with Star Wars where Ends Justifies the Means is the first step on the road to destruction whether you're Anakin, Dooku, Bariss or anyone else. One of the clear motifs of Star Wars has been that Good Intentions are not sufficient to protect against compromising of principles. And I really don't see Ahsoka acting like that anyway. She's out and out hero stuff. More so than most of the original Jedi in fact. But I'm not really familiar with Legends where I presume Grey Jedi come from, so if I have inferred incorrect things from just the name, I could be wrong. Ahsoka doesn't consider herself a Jedi as she says in the episode.

Grey Jedi applies to any Jedi who has left the order: They possess the training and mastery of a Jedi, but they found some irreconcilable philosophical difference between themselves and the order. It does not mean that they're Dark Jedi or Dark Siders or have even drawn on the Dark Side at all. If they were, they would not be grey Jedi, they'd most likely be imprisoned Jedi or dead Jedi (based on the Order's response to the re-emergance of the Sith, I do not think the Order would allow a Jedi who has fallen to the Dark Side to simply walk away).

To me the archetypal grey Jedi is Jolee Bindo, from Knights of the Old Republic . He's a good guy, sides with the Jedi against the Sith, but has little use for the Order (perhaps because he - unlike Anakin - was either unwilling or unable to keep his marriage a secret - or perhaps because he wasn't the Chosen One and therefore no one turned a blind eye to his inability to hold to the Jedi Code). In many ways, Ventress might even be considered a grey Jedi after being expelled from Dooku's service and turning her back on the Dark Side. (Also from Legends, we have the Legacy-era Imperial Knights, who are or were considered to be grey Jedi: Fully-trained Force users, armed with lightsabers, untainted by the Dark Side (falling to the Dark Side would render them unable to perform their duties in safeguarding the Emperor and his family - although that does not mean that individuals might not draw on the Dark Side from time to time), but beholden to neither the New Jedi Order nor Darth Krayt's Sith.)

Anakin, Dooku, and Bariss are not grey Jedi. The only one to formally be known as a grey Jedi was Dooku - but only because his seduction to the Dark Side was unknown at the time he left the order. And all three of them fell to the Dark Side - with two of the three joining the Sith. (The third was likely turned likewise into Palpatine's puppet, although she's unlikely to be a true Sith.) Had Anakin or Bariss left the Jedi Order over their differences rather than seeking to destroy it and, in so doing, turn to the Dark Side, I think a legitimate argument could be made that they were grey Jedi. (Interestingly, I don't think that Anakin leaving the Jedi Order at the end of Attack of the Clones would have had much impact on his story-arc. He probably would have stayed around Padmé, which means staying around Coruscant, which means Palpatine would still be able to manipulate him - although it would be harder to do, given that Anakin and Obi-Wan might have shared drinks at Dex's every now and again, instead of Anakin being subject to the whim of the Jedi Council. Anakin obviously, then, would not have had Ahsoka as a Padawan (maybe she would have been Obi-Wan's?) and he wouldn't have seen the cracks in the Order's façade where so many - like Ahsoka - fall down and are trodden on by the Order. /biglongdigression)

To me a grey Jedi is a Jedi - or other current or former adherent of a lightsaber-weilding Force tradition - who lives generally on their own, lives by their own moral code or code of honor, and does not possess either the cruelty or the galaxy-dominating ambition of a Dark Sider.

While I came around on the goofiness of the Broadsword saber, I'm still not down with the spinning saber. I don't like it, but it doesn't bug me enough to complain or stop watching. I can let it wash over me. . . .

I agree with you on that. The fact that all three Inquisitors have it is interesting, but to me it seems more like a weakness on their end.

We also got a great explanation for Kylo Ren's weapon. (for those who have not heard it) It was based on an older design and is not stable.

I don't like the spinning saber. Personally I hope the Jedi in the series show in no uncertain terms that although having a spinning wall of death might sound like a good idea, and certainly is intimidating, it is worse than using a "proper" lightsaber against an experienced combatant.

I think we got a good glimpse of that when Kanan beat the Grand Inquisitor.

I wouldn't really attribute Kanan beating the Inquisitor being due to the design of the saber he was wielding. The Inquisitor was over confident and did not have an advantageous position in that fight when it ended. Also ...... the Inquisitor just kinda stood there and let him hack his sabre in two. Less about the design and more about poor battle tactics and over confidence.

When did he let Kanan just hack his lightsaber in two? Or are you referring to when Kanan exploited the a fundamental weakness in the design. A similar weakness that Ashoka exploited in her fight. When using it as a forward sheild aka "Spinning Wall of Death" the hilt is completely exposed. That is how Kanan was able to to slide the two lightsaber blades between it and not to mention what Ashoka did.

Now you can argue the Grand Inquistor's overconfidence did play a big part and allowing Kanan to exploit that flaw, but the flaw was still there. That overconfidence lead to him being caught off guard when Kanan stepped up. That is something that accounts for the positioning later on, but that positioning had no effect on Kanan disarming the GI.

Tactics has as much to do with flaws as it does with advantages. So the argument of poor tactics reflects on the Lightaber as much as it does on the user.

From what we have seen the tactics the Inquistors use an a Frontal Assault / Blitzkreg method. Which the Inquistor's lightsaber seems to be specifically designed for and it is even seen in how they use the "Spinning Wall of Death".

While I came around on the goofiness of the Broadsword saber, I'm still not down with the spinning saber. I don't like it, but it doesn't bug me enough to complain or stop watching. I can let it wash over me. . . .

I agree with you on that. The fact that all three Inquisitors have it is interesting, but to me it seems more like a weakness on their end.

We also got a great explanation for Kylo Ren's weapon. (for those who have not heard it) It was based on an older design and is not stable.

I don't like the spinning saber. Personally I hope the Jedi in the series show in no uncertain terms that although having a spinning wall of death might sound like a good idea, and certainly is intimidating, it is worse than using a "proper" lightsaber against an experienced combatant.

I think we got a good glimpse of that when Kanan beat the Grand Inquisitor.

I wouldn't really attribute Kanan beating the Inquisitor being due to the design of the saber he was wielding. The Inquisitor was over confident and did not have an advantageous position in that fight when it ended. Also ...... the Inquisitor just kinda stood there and let him hack his sabre in two. Less about the design and more about poor battle tactics and over confidence.

When did he let Kanan just hack his lightsaber in two? Or are you referring to when Kanan exploited the a fundamental weakness in the design. A similar weakness that Ashoka exploited in her fight. When using it as a forward sheild aka "Spinning Wall of Death" the hilt is completely exposed. That is how Kanan was able to to slide the two lightsaber blades between it and not to mention what Ashoka did.

Now you can argue the Grand Inquistor's overconfidence did play a big part and allowing Kanan to exploit that flaw, but the flaw was still there. That overconfidence lead to him being caught off guard when Kanan stepped up. That is something that accounts for the positioning later on, but that positioning had no effect on Kanan disarming the GI.

Tactics has as much to do with flaws as it does with advantages. So the argument of poor tactics reflects on the Lightaber as much as it does on the user.

From what we have seen the tactics the Inquistors use an a Frontal Assault / Blitzkreg method. Which the Inquistor's lightsaber seems to be specifically designed for and it is even seen in how they use the "Spinning Wall of Death".

There's truth in here. The lightmill has advantages where less skilled opponents are the combatants. Blocking blaster bolts with a regular lightsabre? Hard to do and dependent on Jedi training and foresight. Blocking them with that windmill of death? Much easier. The same applies to blocking melee strikes. And yet when facing a more skilled opponent who can accurately target that little bit in the middle, it becomes LESS effective than a proper lightsabre. Or at least no longer an advantage. You don't have to move it very far so that you're again blocking (just got to get that middle bit out of the way again), so it's not useless, but you can't angle it away from you to either redirect blaster bolts or to do a quick lunging strike. Why not? Because you'd cut yourself in half with the other side of the death circle the moment you angled it.

I would say for these reasons it really is a weapon designed to compensate for someone who doesn't have a Jedi Knight's skills. At least in whirly-death mode. In single mode it's effectively a lightsabre with a daffy hilt. In double mode non-spinning, it's a slightly worse version of Darth Maul's lightstaff on the grounds that it doesn't have as easy to use a haft in the middle, but rather a double-sided guard you have to reach forwards into or out of.

1) Oooh, Clancy Brown does a voice. Mind you, I cant help seeing him as Lex Luthor , so that's a thing.

2) Was the thing Ezra was chasing called a Lolcat?

3) I hope Kanan has a long talk with his padawan about tapping the anger and frustration for power as he was running towards the two inquisitors. Kid is heading to a dark place if he is not careful.

So it looks like Rebels is going on a short hiatus until early 2016. That's too bad, I was really getting into the show. I just wish we had something to fill my Star Wars fix until then. . . .

2) Was the thing Ezra was chasing called a Lolcat?

Loth-cat. For more details, see the fan-made “Spark of Rebellion” book at http://www.rpg.buzz/

3) I hope Kanan has a long talk with his padawan about tapping the anger and frustration for power as he was running towards the two inquisitors. Kid is heading to a dark place if he is not careful.

Indeed. I’d honestly hate to see another Anakin-in-the-making.

So it looks like Rebels is going on a short hiatus until early 2016. That's too bad, I was really getting into the show. I just wish we had something to fill my Star Wars fix until then. . . .

I've always like Clancy Brown - one of my favorite character actors. Nice to see him get another star wars gig after Savage Opress (or as i like to think of him the Star Wars Kurgan)

I am continually surprised at how deftly a "children's" show handles heavy topics like the situation with Ezra's parents.

Not exactly a action packed mid-season finale I would have hoped for, but not a bad episode either. It felt like this was essentially a "set-up" episode, in that they are setting up storylines for the back half of the season with X-10 the former Lothal governor (Maybe he knows why the Imperials really came to Lothal), and getting into Ezra's emotions about his parents etc etc.

If Rebels really is going on break until 2016 this feels like it should have been the penultimate episode rather than the last one before the break.

This episode really reminded me how little I like the animation style they used for Rebels. Lots of close ups of faces supposed to be emotional but to me it looks like a CGI version of Mr. Potato Head - smooth ovoid with eyes, nose and mouth stuck on. Some of them - Hera, Sabine and Kallus aren't as bad so perhaps when a face is very angular it offsets the over-smoothness and balloonishness of the animation style a little. But Ezra, and in this episode X-10, really don't work imo. Ezra's hair in particular looks like something stuck on the top of a lego man - not part of him, just a plastic molded blob clipped on top. It all looks a little like a child would draw if you had a child with preternaturally good motorskills. Don't like it much.

And, well, that's it for me.

This episode was just ... dull. And honestly, after a season and a half of "Rebels," I still have yet to connect to even one of the main characters. The gimmicky tech still bothers me. And when I find the only reason I'm still watching this thing is to find out what happens in the (inevitable) clash between Ahsoka and Vader? It's time to leave.

Here are the things I've liked about "Rebels:"

- The reliance on secondary as opposed to primary colors. (Zeb is purple/green, Sabine is orange/purple, Ezra is orange, Kanan is green, Hera is green, Chopper is orange, etc.) This gives the series a distinctive look and feel. So kudos to the art directors for this decision.

- The look of the Ghost . (Yes, I cannot stand the Phantom , but I *do* like the Ghost . Ditch the stupid G-1 Gatchaman fighter in the back, and you have a fantastic new addition to the ever-growing Star Wars ship list.)

- The use of some of Ralph McQuarrie's designs.

The things I've disliked, however, are simply too numerous to post.

Too bad the series just didn't live up to the previous Clone Wars animated series. But I will never blame Filoni and company for trying something new; all of the background information we have on "Rebels" leads me to believe the House of Mouse got involved and steered the ship... Hence, the more innate "childishness" (e.g., lack of complex writing/storytelling, gimmicky tech, lots of lightsaber wielders, slapstick, constant focus on the youngest member of the cast, more rounded Disney-esque artwork, etc.) of this new series.

Sooo...

Sayonara, "Rebels."

Interesting take.

For me, the things you mentioned disliking are things that I pretty much accept will come with any animated venture aimed at the 8-12 demographic. Not exactly what I'd do if I were the one making it, but totally understandable, given the intended audience.

That being said, I find it interesting that you found it lacking in comparison to the Clone Wars cartoons, which I found to be thoroughly and completely lousy in every single aspect in which I tried to evaluate them. I force fed myself a few seasons just to make sure (and to hedge the inevitable patronizing feedback of, "If you didn't like it, it's because xyz. Go back and watch it incorporating xyz and you will like it if you have half a brain.") and by the time I eventually gave up, it not only left me thoroughly disenchanted with the series, but also most of the characters as well.

That's one of the reasons I'm really, really hoping I like the sequel trilogy: though the prequels were less-than-stellar movies, I could still get into the stories of that era...after the Clone Wars cartoon, I pretty much can't stand anything to do with the entire time frame because of how pervasive the series was in the lore of that era...with a new movie trilogy, I'm hoping to find a broader time frame I can enjoy.