On 5/17/2019 at 11:16 PM, Archlyte said:

Something that has always bothered me is how the Order 66 scheme as depicted in the movie was effective in completely bushwhacking the Jedi. Except for Yoda, the Jedi were like Whaaat!?

So I know that they were used to the clones and didn't expect them to do that, but aren't they also like able to react to danger more quickly because of "Jedi reflexes" and what not? In in any other situation we would expect Jedi to have a lit light saber out in a blink of an eye. What's up with this?

They frequently did whip out lightsabers and defect stuff, but they were frequently overwhelmed.

Several of the Jedi shown were actively deflecting blaster bolts, but it was a question of volume.

Plus, they aren't all of the same skill level. Some are better at lightsaber work than others, so there is a gradient scale of skill to consider.

They are also not immortal, Phantom Menace made that very clear when kid Anakin talked to Qui-Gon and said what is the typical in-universe, and fanboy misconception about Jedi, that they are unkillabe. He chuckled and was like "i wish that were true." So killing Jedi is possible, just difficult

In Attack of the Clones, during the arena battle, when the Jedi were working in unison, defending each other, with allies at their backs, they were still dropping from the concentrated blaster fire. They were able to hold off against incredible odds, but the nameless Jedi mook extras did die from time to time. So even with a defensive position, with allies, they are not impervious to blaster fire. Couple that with being alone, suddenly sensing your allies are now hostiles, having to process the shock/disbelief about that in a split second, AND then defend yourself from 360 degrees of threat in a moments notice....yeah, they didn't survive it.

I think you're underestimating the emotional impact of finding yourself betrayed by EVERY ally in your army, and suddenly fighting them AND the actual enemy on the other front, would have on someone, Jedi or not.

And if you want to use in game logic for it, they ran out of strain under so many blaster shots, and were unable to deflect/reflect any more blaster bolts that combat encounter.

But Lucas wasn't thinking with game logic, he was thinking with the above points, and narrative logic. It's the same reason that Jack had to die in Titanic, despite the door being big enough for both of them.

On 5/20/2019 at 2:23 AM, MrTInce said:

I can't remember the source but something else I once read about the Jedi's power diminishing was because of their great numbers. You have 10,000+ people calling upon the Force and there can only be so much to go around.

Palpatine had more power because he called upon the dark side and there was more of that to go around.

...yeaaaah, I call total BS on that theory. It's a GALAXY spanning energy field, that ties ALL living things together, to think that a few thousand people using it's power would somehow deplete it's "reserves" or whatever is arrogance to the point of idiocy in my opinion. "Life creates it, makes it grow." so it becomes stronger the more living beings in the galaxy, which would be counted in googleplexes as far as number of beings. And we're supposed to buy that a few thousand people are capable of draining that exponentially growing power source on a literal cosmic scale, so vast, human brains honestly cannot truly fathom the scale of it?

Yeah....no, sorry, just no.

That's just a bit of really bad writing, from a previous draft of the script, that hinted at a plot element that eventually got dropped in a re-write, and they just left that line in. Happens in movies all the time, a recent and popular example is Guardians of the Galaxy 1, where Drax is talking about how he cares for all of them, and refers to Gammora as a "green hore" , even though nowhere in the film was she EVER referred to as that, making the line make zero sense for the ultra-literal guy to say, as the context of it was edited out. (a previous scene that was cut, had someone call Gammora a hore, yes i know the spelling, but trying to get around the censorbots on this site, and Drax, being 100% literal, assumed that meant she actually was a prostitute, and so would refer to her as such. But all that got cut, and they didn't reshoot that scene. So yeah, dangling line of dialogue makes no sense, just like the "our power is diminished" How it's never mentioned again in the films, has zero bearing on the plot of the trilogy, we're shown no actual examples of any of the Jedi struggling to use their powers, etc.

On 5/20/2019 at 12:39 PM, HappyDaze said:

Does the Emperor block anything or does he just not do anything evil in public. Do Jedi have the ability to detect latent evil or only currently active negative thoughts & emotions?

I believe in Episode III Yoda says that the Dark Side surrounds Palpatine. But I always attributed that to they knew Palps was shifty, but without proof they couldn't do anything about it (hence using Anakin to spy). However, none of them, dared to dream that Palpatine was the Sith Lord they had been searching for.

Heck, Cassian wasn't proven to be Force Sensitive and we were told that the Force moved darkly around him for a time when he was about to assassinate Galen, so being surrounded by the Dark Side doesn't strictly make one is a dark side Force user.

1 minute ago, kaosoe said:

I believe in Episode III Yoda says that the Dark Side surrounds Palpatine. But I always attributed that to they knew Palps was shifty, but without proof they couldn't do anything about it (hence using spying Anakin to spy). However, none of them, dared to dream that Palpatine was the Sith Lord they had been searching for.

I think the dark side surrounds most politicians.

50 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

They frequently did whip out lightsabers and defect stuff, but they were frequently overwhelmed.

Several of the Jedi shown were actively deflecting blaster bolts, but it was a question of volume.

Plus, they aren't all of the same skill level. Some are better at lightsaber work than others, so there is a gradient scale of skill to consider.

They are also not immortal, Phantom Menace made that very clear when kid Anakin talked to Qui-Gon and said what is the typical in-universe, and fanboy misconception about Jedi, that they are unkillabe. He chuckled and was like "i wish that were true." So killing Jedi is possible, just difficult

In Attack of the Clones, during the arena battle, when the Jedi were working in unison, defending each other, with allies at their backs, they were still dropping from the concentrated blaster fire. They were able to hold off against incredible odds, but the nameless Jedi mook extras did die from time to time. So even with a defensive position, with allies, they are not impervious to blaster fire. Couple that with being alone, suddenly sensing your allies are now hostiles, having to process the shock/disbelief about that in a split second, AND then defend yourself from 360 degrees of threat in a moments notice....yeah, they didn't survive it.

I think you're underestimating the emotional impact of finding yourself betrayed by EVERY ally in your army, and suddenly fighting them AND the actual enemy on the other front, would have one someone, Jedi or not.

And if you want to use in game logic for it, they ran out of strain under so many blaster shots, and were unable to deflect/reflect any more blaster bolts that combat encounter.

But Lucas wasn't thinking with game logic, he was thinking with the above points, and narrative logic. It's the same reason that Jack had to die in Titanic, despite the door being big enough for both of them.

It was just bad writing. People have grown up with it so it seems plain to them, but it was a way to wrap up the movie quickly. The Jedi are exterminated in like what 4 minutes?

• I agree that Jedi aren't immortal and just want to point out that I didn't say they were.
• Order 66 executed at a moment when every Jedi in the open and in great ambush position by their clones. What great fortune!
• Jedi are raised from kidlin's to not respond to their emotions so I don't buy the "you were my brother clone 46722!"
• Having enemy to your front could be an advantage because you can get the larger body of clones to chase you into enemy fire where they would have a larger unit to try and get into cover while a magic space knight could probably do ok.

Your last point is exactly my point that it was a story device.

59 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

...yeaaaah, I call total BS on that theory. It's a GALAXY spanning energy field, that ties ALL living things together, to think that a few thousand people using it's power would somehow deplete it's "reserves" or whatever is arrogance to the point of idiocy in my opinion. "Life creates it, makes it grow." so it becomes stronger the more living beings in the galaxy, which would be counted in googleplexes as far as number of beings. And we're supposed to buy that a few thousand people are capable of draining that exponentially growing power source on a literal cosmic scale, so vast, human brains honestly cannot truly fathom the scale of it?

Yeah....no, sorry, just no.

That's just a bit of really bad writing, from a previous draft of the script, that hinted at a plot element that eventually got dropped in a re-write, and they just left that line in. Happens in movies all the time, a recent and popular example is Guardians of the Galaxy 1, where Drax is talking about how he cares for all of them, and refers to Gammora as a "green hore" , even though nowhere in the film was she EVER referred to as that, making the line make zero sense for the ultra-literal guy to say, as the context of it was edited out. (a previous scene that was cut, had someone call Gammora a hore, yes i know the spelling, but trying to get around the censorbots on this site, and Drax, being 100% literal, assumed that meant she actually was a prostitute, and so would refer to her as such. But all that got cut, and they didn't reshoot that scene. So yeah, dangling line of dialogue makes no sense, just like the "our power is diminished" How it's never mentioned again in the films, has zero bearing on the plot of the trilogy, we're shown no actual examples of any of the Jedi struggling to use their powers, etc.

One way to see it might be to envision an infinite resource but with this resource being attracted to individuals differently. If there are less Force Users there may be a large attraction to one individual like Palpatine or Rey.

29 minutes ago, kaosoe said:

I believe in Episode III Yoda says that the Dark Side surrounds Palpatine. But I always attributed that to they knew Palps was shifty, but without proof they couldn't do anything about it (hence using spying Anakin to spy). However, none of them, dared to dream that Palpatine was the Sith Lord they had been searching for.

Heck, Cassian wasn't proven to be Force Sensitive and we were told that the Force moved darkly around him for a time when he was about to assassinate Galen, so being surrounded by the Dark Side doesn't strictly make one a dark side Force user.

The ability to sense the Dark Side is not useful then. This is like having the power to sense radiation but it's blocked by the presence of radiation. So dumb lol.

10 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

• Jedi are raised from kidlin's to not respond to their emotions so I don't buy the "you were my brother clone 46722!"

Obi-Wan screams almost literally that line to Anakin in dismay. He's wrecked with guilt and shock when he sees Anakin murdering children. ****, the entirety of Return is about how the Jedi way to handle emotions DOESN'T WORK.

Are you just incapable of distinguishing between what characters say and what the movie itself is telling you?

17 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Obi-Wan screams almost literally that line to Anakin in dismay. He's wrecked with guilt and shock when he sees Anakin murdering children. ****, the entirety of Return is about how the Jedi way to handle emotions DOESN'T WORK.

Are you just incapable of distinguishing between what characters say and what the movie itself is telling you?

Look up the burning monk from the Viet Nam era. This guy dies from fire while meditating and has no ability to use the Force. The Jedi are supposed to be somewhat like this and can choose to not be emotionally reactive.

People can't fathom this sort of discipline but it exists. Stoics and monks attain it in reality. Not everyone has a worldview in which being reactive emotionally is seen as ideal.

9 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

It was just bad writing. People have grown up with it so it seems plain to them, but it was a way to wrap up the movie quickly. The Jedi are exterminated in like what 4 minutes?

• Order 66 executed at a moment when every Jedi in the open and in great ambush position by their clones. What great fortune!

Well yes, Palps planned it at the worst time possible on purpose. It wasn't coincidence, it was planned.

10 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

• Jedi are raised from kidlin's to not respond to their emotions so I don't buy the "you were my brother clone 46722!"

Not respond to emotions isn't the same thing as not having them. They were taught not to let their emotions guide their actions. To be calm, at peace, passive. We see time and again that the Jedi had emotions. Yoda was a smart***** that reveled in throwing shade at people, and then laughing his little froggy head off about it. Obi-Wan frequently teased Anakain and told jokes, like in the elevator scene in AotC. And Obi-Wan was clearly upset in Revenge after beating Anakin, being angry and distraught, screaming "You were my brother anakin!" So yeah, they had emotions. They aren't Vulcans, who have ostensibly purged emotions from their brains. They are trained to not lash out impulsively, based on the heat of the moment, because if they do, they can Force Choke a Bit** to death, and that's bad. It doesn't mean they don't have those emotions, they just don't reflexively give in to them. It's called Control. Besides, you just have to actually watch the scene in question to see they are clearly shocked by the betrayal, they are open mouthed, stunned, confused by what's going on. They react quickly, with almost Jedi like reflexes and defend themselves, but they are still unable to survive that much concentrated firepower alone. They couldn't even survive it with friends in a non-betrayal situation.

25 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

• Having enemy to your front could be an advantage because you can get the larger body of clones to chase you into enemy fire where they would have a larger unit to try and get into cover while a magic space knight could probably do ok.

....this point makes no sense to me in the context of my response. Enemy to your front IS an advantage, because it means they aren't behind you...that's the whole problem. Suddenly, the "enemy" was in every direction, which made it hard to effectively defend 100% of all blaster shots. The Jedi has to be completely 100% effective in their defense to survive after O66....one clone just has to get lucky with one shot, and statistically, that was going to happen, with the number of shots they were throwing around.

27 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Your last point is exactly my point that it was a story device.

Then why did you start this thread? I'm confused, your OP suggested you were honestly confused about why they all died, and now you say "it was a story device" . So why are you asking us why if you already have an opinion on the subject?

26 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

One way to see it might be to envision an infinite resource but with this resource being attracted to individuals differently. If there are less Force Users there may be a large attraction to one individual like Palpatine or Rey.

If the resource is infinite, it shouldn't matter how many directions it's drawn to, it would have no effect on the actual resource. In effect, every Force user would be a "solo" user, and would have access to the same amount of power as any other, making the idea that the Sith are more powerful, because there are fewer of them tapping into the resource irrelevant.

If everyone is swimming in the ocean, and all open their mouths at once to drink it in, nobody is going to "drain" the ocean, and all of them are going to be equally capable of drawing in the same amount of water at the same time. So it's just a really bad, flawed theory. I mean, I get why the theory exists, because someone in a Star Wars movie said something, so fans obsessively fixated on it, and made theories about it for decades, that have grown into unsubstantiated "facts", because that's what Star Wars fans do, but it just simply doesn't make sense, and was also just completely dropped by the films entirely as a plot thread that had no bearing on anything.

You're mistaking the ideal the Jedi strive for with the reality of their fallibility that is presented in the movies.

8 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

The Jedi are supposed to be somewhat like this and can choose to not be emotionally reactive  . 

They *can't*. Obi-Wan, Yoda, they all fail at this. Because it's an unattainable ideal. They are saying one thing but their actions prove them wrong.

3 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Well yes, Palps planned it at the worst time possible on purpose. It wasn't coincidence, it was planned.

Not respond to emotions isn't the same thing as not having them. They were taught not to let their emotions guide their actions. To be calm, at peace, passive. We see time and again that the Jedi had emotions. Yoda was a smart***** that reveled in throwing shade at people, and then laughing his little froggy head off about it. Obi-Wan frequently teased Anakain and told jokes, like in the elevator scene in AotC. And Obi-Wan was clearly upset in Revenge after beating Anakin, being angry and distraught, screaming "You were my brother anakin!" So yeah, they had emotions. They aren't Vulcans, who have ostensibly purged emotions from their brains. They are trained to not lash out impulsively, based on the heat of the moment, because if they do, they can Force Choke a Bit** to death, and that's bad. It doesn't mean they don't have those emotions, they just don't reflexively give in to them. It's called Control. Besides, you just have to actually watch the scene in question to see they are clearly shocked by the betrayal, they are open mouthed, stunned, confused by what's going on. They react quickly, with almost Jedi like reflexes and defend themselves, but they are still unable to survive that much concentrated firepower alone. They couldn't even survive it with friends in a non-betrayal situation.

....this point makes no sense to me in the context of my response. Enemy to your front IS an advantage, because it means they aren't behind you...that's the whole problem. Suddenly, the "enemy" was in every direction, which made it hard to effectively defend 100% of all blaster shots. The Jedi has to be completely 100% effective in their defense to survive after O66....one clone just has to get lucky with one shot, and statistically, that was going to happen, with the number of shots they were throwing around.

Then why did you start this thread? I'm confused, your OP suggested you were honestly confused about why they all died, and now you say "it was a story device" . So why are you asking us why if you already have an opinion on the subject?

If the resource is infinite, it shouldn't matter how many directions it's drawn to, it would have no effect on the actual resource. In effect, every Force user would be a "solo" user, and would have access to the same amount of power as any other, making the idea that the Sith are more powerful, because there are fewer of them tapping into the resource irrelevant.

If everyone is swimming in the ocean, and all open their mouths at once to drink it in, nobody is going to "drain" the ocean, and all of them are going to be equally capable of drawing in the same amount of water at the same time. So it's just a really bad, flawed theory. I mean, I get why the theory exists, because someone in a Star Wars movie said something, so fans obsessively fixated on it, and made theories about it for decades, that have grown into unsubstantiated "facts", because that's what Star Wars fans do, but it just simply doesn't make sense, and was also just completely dropped by the films entirely as a plot thread that had no bearing on anything.

It's a bad story device. My point is that it's dumb. The thread has been open for a while and we've been discussing it so I have formed an opinion based on the discussion.

1 minute ago, Stan Fresh said:

You're mistaking the ideal the Jedi strive for with the reality of their fallibility that is presented in the movies.

They *can't*. Obi-Wan, Yoda, they all fail at this. Because it's an unattainable ideal. They are saying one thing but their actions prove them wrong.

It's a real thing so I don't know what to say if you don't believe it.

1 minute ago, Archlyte said:

It's a real thing so I don't know what to say if you don't believe it.

No it's not. That people can commit suicide doesn't mean they can act perfectly without emotion. More like the opposite. You have no idea what was going on in that man's head, anyway.

And it's not the thing the movies present. "Why aren't Jedi like this other thing from outside the movies that's not even real".

1 minute ago, Stan Fresh said:

No it's not. That people can commit suicide doesn't mean they can act perfectly without emotion. More like the opposite. You have no idea what was going on in that man's head, anyway.

And it's not the thing the movies present. "Why aren't Jedi like this other thing from outside the movies that's not even real".

Ok well I can't give you any more proof than that so I guess we disagree on it.

4 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Ok well I can't give you any more proof than that so I guess we disagree on it.

You haven't given *any* proof.

There seems to be this idea that people must all have the same mindset. Largely people in the modern world function in a certain way that is seen as normal and neuro-typical, but there have been individuals and groups in history who have been able to cognitively retrain themselves to be non-reactive to emotion. This is accomplished through a devotion to something larger than themselves, and a dedication to a non-individualistic approach to life and death. The Stoic movement in ancient Rome pursued a similar path, dealing in virtues and vices and emotional responses to problems were considered to be a vice.

There is also a difference between a reflexive response and someone choosing to affirm an impulse by acting in accordance with it and conditioning one's self to inaction in the face of emotion. This takes years of dedication and requires rejecting the instinctual notion of self and the self as the center of the universe because it is the seat of perception.

When I first learned of such people I had a repellent attitude toward them because it is so alien to think of people who leave emotion behind and can simply see themselves as a mote in time. So I can hardly blame anyone for wanting to believe that such a thing is impossible. It is not typical by any means and represents a very small percentage of people in history, but this level of non-individual perspective coupled with distance from emotions and emotional reactions is possible.

In both Legends and the new canon, at no point to the Jedi strive to be completely unaffected by their emotions to the point of not even having emotions.

What they strive for is to have the self-discipline to not be unduly influenced by their emotions. As living beings, they're going to have emotional responses to situations, so the trick is to learn to manage those responses well enough that they don't unduly influence one's decision making process in the heat of the moment. Anakin's big problem was that he'd never learned to keep a reign on his emotions, and unfortunately none of the Jedi around were really able to help him; also not helping was Palps constantly stoking and fueling the kid's ego, but that's a separate issue.

Most modern militaries do something similar with training soldiers to be able to focus on the mission at hand during combat situations, and not give into instinctive reactions that could very likely get them killed. And many monastic orders to the same, teaching their members to not so much suppress various reactions to emotional stimulus, but rather to manage their reactions so that they aren't distracted from their spiritual calling.

The problem is that such a way of life, of constantly not giving reign to one's emotions and standing apart from regular society for a generally ascetic lifestyle, is such a foreign concept that they can't wrap their heads around it, and blindly presume that the Jedi belief is that "emotions and feelings are bad and should be utterly suppressed."

Yeah but training yourself to not react to emotions is not being devoid of emotions, just to point out I did not say they would not have them.

5 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

In both Legends and the new canon, at no point to the Jedi strive to be completely unaffected by their emotions to the point of not even having emotions.

What they strive for is to have the self-discipline to not be unduly influenced by their emotions. As living beings, they're going to have emotional responses to situations, so the trick is to learn to manage those responses well enough that they don't unduly influence one's decision making process in the heat of the moment. Anakin's big problem was that he'd never learned to keep a reign on his emotions, and unfortunately none of the Jedi around were really able to help him; also not helping was Palps constantly stoking and fueling the kid's ego, but that's a separate issue.

Most modern militaries do something similar with training soldiers to be able to focus on the mission at hand during combat situations, and not give into instinctive reactions that could very likely get them killed. And many monastic orders to the same, teaching their members to not so much suppress various reactions to emotional stimulus, but rather to manage their reactions so that they aren't distracted from their spiritual calling.

The problem is that such a way of life, of constantly not giving reign to one's emotions and standing apart from regular society for a generally ascetic lifestyle, is such a foreign concept that they can't wrap their heads around it, and blindly presume that the Jedi belief is that "emotions and feelings are bad and should be utterly suppressed."

And of course the general population sees that discipline as weird and mistakes it for the jedi not having emotion. And some react negatively to the concept of jedi having no emotion. It is a just another wedge between society and the jedi.

14 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

You haven't given *any* proof.

Stan I hope you are seeing this discussion as just that and not a contest of some kind. Your responses seem terse and I've seen you get provocative before. I assure you that this is simply a good natured discussion and that I respect what you are saying.

1 minute ago, Archlyte said:

Stan I hope you are seeing this discussion as just that and not a contest of some kind. Your responses seem terse and I've seen you get provocative before. I assure you that this is simply a good natured discussion and that I respect what you are saying.

I think it is a great discussion because it is teasing out all the nuances of order 66. Because what we see in the movie glosses over a lot of stuff.

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I think it is a great discussion because it is teasing out all the nuances of order 66. Because what we see in the movie glosses over a lot of stuff.

Thanks I try to enter discussion from the stance that I may have something to learn even if I have some sort of preliminary opinion. I've seen some great arguments in both directions that have helped me see the subject in different ways.

5 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Stan I hope you are seeing this discussion as just that and not a contest of some kind. Your responses seem terse and I've seen you get provocative before. I assure you that this is simply a good natured discussion and that I respect what you are saying.

That I don't invest a lot of words in pointing out you haven't done what you say you've done doesn't mean I'm getting emotional or seeing this as a contest.

36 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

It's a bad story device. My point is that it's dumb.

Ah, well yeah it's not the best plot device, given how it was implemented in the story, but in itself, the idea that the Jedi were destroyed by the army they were sent to lead is feasible, and thematically appropriate in my book. Though I don't really see the big problem with it. I mean, no Jedi has ever been depicted as being able to stand alone against an entire army, and by army i do mean thousands. At least not in the films. There is that cartoon of Mace Windu that the guy who made Samurai Jack did, but he is kind of famous for going over the top, and I'm not really sure that's canon.

But i mean, one person vs thousands of people potentially firing at once, no Jedi will survive that for long. They aren't flawless, they are living beings, with limitations. Limitations that are higher than the average joe sure, but limitations none the less.

I mean, they have to have limits narratively, or there is no tension in any scene. It's the Superman effect. Nobody really ever worries if Superman is going to survive a fight, he's Superman. The tension they apply is in the situation itself, and how Supes has to resolve the situation. The Jedi aren't Superman, they are far less personally resilient than him. To use a 1-10 scale, normal humans are at a 1, when it comes to overall durability, Superman is at 11, and Jedi are like, a 6-7. Extremely more durable than you or I, but still plenty killable in a number of ways.