The Point of Qui-Gon Jinn

[Matth_Stil]

...Here's something: Perhaps young obi-wan should have wanted anakin to be trained as much as qui-gon, but only so qui-gon would take on a new padawan and obi-wan could move on to knighthood. Obi-wan feigns interests and enthusiasm, and when qui-gon is killed the council saddles the responsability of training anakin with obi-wan, believing that he would want to train him just like qui-gon.

 

This sets up a bad master-padawan relationship between anakin and obi-wan, and anakin never really accepts the jedi code or way fully, allowing for palpatine to have an easier time luring him to the dark side. It also shows that the sage-like wisdom and competence shown in old obi-wan was something that developed over time, and not some kind of inborn trait.

 

Excellent.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Matth_Stil

[Slowpokeking]

What, seriously? I'd thought every ounce of lore between the movies would have been covered by this point.

 

 

On topic.

 

Here's something: Perhaps young Obi-Wan should have wanted Anakin to be trained as much as Qui-Gon, but only so Qui-Gon would take on a new padawan and Obi-Wan could move on to knighthood. Obi-Wan feigns interests and enthusiasm, and when Qui-Gon is killed the council saddles the responsability of training Anakin with Obi-Wan, believing that he would want to train him just like Qui-Gon.

 

This sets up a bad master-padawan relationship between Anakin and Obi-Wan, and Anakin never really accepts the Jedi Code or Way fully, allowing for Palpatine to have an easier time luring him to the Dark Side. It also shows that the sage-like wisdom and competence shown in old Obi-Wan was something that developed over time, and not some kind of inborn trait.

 

Obi Wan even spoke out something like "You heard them, the boy is dangerous" when Anakin was aside.

[Devilishmutt]

I have yet to see any Jinn defenders here (makes sense), soooo I'll say it again. Worst. Jedi. Ever. Almost pointless, boring character.

 

His dueling skills as a Master were also apparently sub par. He was cut down by an apprentice. Yes the apprentice of Sidious, & a Darth, but an apprentice nonetheless.

 

His only redeeming quality for me is that he appeared to be a Grey Jedi who trolled the council.

 

What part of DARTH Maul do you not get? QUI-GON was not a master and DARTH is only the rank of a SITH MASTER and have you noticed how most of the jedi masters suck with lightsabers? so anyone could have died because of darth maul.

Qui-Gon is actually my fave starwars character so there is a few Jinn defenders

Edited May 15, 2012 by Devilishmutt
miss spelling

[Devilishmutt]

So you want to see Anakin kicked Palpatine's ***, saved the Republic and became the Grand Master of the Jedi?

 

Actually Obi Wan and Anakin are different kind of people, that's why they finally parted away. In EP I you can see Anakin didn't have much connection with him. Obi Wan even said "The boy is dangerous" before young Anakin.

 

I do kinda agree but then people would wonder who was obi wans master and they would complain about enough information.

[westraz]

so the point of you post is that qui-Gon Jinn fell in a plot hole?.. so other then that he was useless right?

[RDeanOU]

We have Episode I because without it, we don't see where Anakin was found, what his situation was, or what the root cause was of his fall to the Dark Side. Could it have been a Prologue? Sure. Is that what we got? No. Instead of railing on and on about what we were given thirteen years ago, maybe you should think about the novels that were written that fill in the gaps.

 

There is virtually nothing known of the three years between Episode IV and Episode V. Sure, there are some comic books but, nothing substantial. The only bit of the six months between Episode V and Episode Vi we see is what was described in the novel Shadows of the Empire.

 

Do you see people railing on and on about those missed parts? No.

 

The addition of Qui-Gon gives us the explanation of how Anakin was found and why he ended up with Obi-Wan as his Master. If we didn't get that, there would be different unanswered questions than what you perceive as such currently.

 

We don't need to see where Anakin was found or what his situation was and we could have easily established the roots of his fall to the dark side in far more subtle and effective ways.

 

The addition of Qui-Gon Jinn gives us nothing. The version we were given thirteen years ago made the movies absolutely terrible and as someone who loves Star Wars I think that is worth complaining about.

 

There are always unanswered questions in a good heroic epic. Having those unanswered questions is what makes the world seem deep and real. Trying to answer all of those questions that no one needs to know the answers to ruins the movie. When I watched Han Solo in the original series I didn't care what his childhood was like or where he grew up. It wasn't important to the movie. Anakin's childhood wasn't important either. What was relevant was that he was a young Jedi strong with the force who fell to the dark side. We don't need to go back to Tatooine to establish that.

 

Instead of developing the characters that were necessary to the story we got Qui-Gon Jinn. It was a total waste and it was one of the choices that ruined the prequels.

[bofbrentham]

Don't forget Qui-Gon also showed Yoda, who then showed Obi-Wan how to 'return from the nether regions of the force' (or words to that effect). Admittedly, they could have written it that Yoda knew this skill already, which would have been very plausible. I still rate Qui-Gon, he defiently had a role to play.

[Lewisgil]

What part of DARTH Maul do you not get? QUI-GON was not a master and DARTH is only the rank of a SITH MASTER and have you noticed how most of the jedi masters suck with lightsabers? so anyone could have died because of darth maul.

Qui-Gon is actually my fave starwars character so there is a few Jinn defenders

 

Actually, Qui-Gon WAS a Master. He was just not a member of the Jedi Council.

 

What part of Darth Tyranus or Darth Vader makes it seem like Darth equates to Sith Master? As soon as the Rule of Two was initiated, both were considered Sith Lords and both carried the title of Darth. It was no longer an honorific bestowed upon those that have risen in the ranks but instead, it became the challenge which it represented. Darth was a challenge to all comers. If someone could defeat you, they got your title. It's part of the reason the Brotherhood of the Sith decided to no longer use the title and tried so hard to dissuade Bane from taking the title himself.

[Lewisgil]

We don't need to see where Anakin was found or what his situation was and we could have easily established the roots of his fall to the dark side in far more subtle and effective ways.

 

The addition of Qui-Gon Jinn gives us nothing. The version we were given thirteen years ago made the movies absolutely terrible and as someone who loves Star Wars I think that is worth complaining about.

 

There are always unanswered questions in a good heroic epic. Having those unanswered questions is what makes the world seem deep and real. Trying to answer all of those questions that no one needs to know the answers to ruins the movie. When I watched Han Solo in the original series I didn't care what his childhood was like or where he grew up. It wasn't important to the movie. Anakin's childhood wasn't important either. What was relevant was that he was a young Jedi strong with the force who fell to the dark side. We don't need to go back to Tatooine to establish that.

 

Instead of developing the characters that were necessary to the story we got Qui-Gon Jinn. It was a total waste and it was one of the choices that ruined the prequels.

 

We got to see where Luke came from. It's only fitting that we see where his father came from as well. What origin story do you know of that does not show where the protagonist ORIGINATED?

 

Letting us see his emotional attachment to his mother in Episode I gives us the means by which to understand his reaction to the Sand People in Episode II, which further allows us to understand why he was so willing to become Palpatine's slave.

 

Introducing Qui-Gon lets us see why Obi-Wan was not the best choice to train Anakin but was still tasked with doing so.

 

Should it have been omitted completely? Absolutely not. Should that have been condensed into a prologue sequence at the beginning of Episode I? Absolutely.

 

Don't think that just because you whine and complain about how horrible the Prequel Trilogy was makes your love for Star Wars any greater than mine. I'm willing to bet I saw the Original Trilogy before you were even born. Star Wars is the foundation for all of my geek interests. That does not mean that I can't find the reasoning behind the decisions made.

[Slowpokeking]

so the point of you post is that qui-Gon Jinn fell in a plot hole?.. so other then that he was useless right?

 

Without him, the skill of force ghost would not be rediscovered.

[beepinbeeper]

WIthout qui gon there is no obi wan talking to luke.

[Slowpokeking]

We got to see where Luke came from. It's only fitting that we see where his father came from as well. What origin story do you know of that does not show where the protagonist ORIGINATED?

 

Letting us see his emotional attachment to his mother in Episode I gives us the means by which to understand his reaction to the Sand People in Episode II, which further allows us to understand why he was so willing to become Palpatine's slave.

 

Introducing Qui-Gon lets us see why Obi-Wan was not the best choice to train Anakin but was still tasked with doing so.

 

Should it have been omitted completely? Absolutely not. Should that have been condensed into a prologue sequence at the beginning of Episode I? Absolutely.

 

Don't think that just because you whine and complain about how horrible the Prequel Trilogy was makes your love for Star Wars any greater than mine. I'm willing to bet I saw the Original Trilogy before you were even born. Star Wars is the foundation for all of my geek interests. That does not mean that I can't find the reasoning behind the decisions made.

 

Not just that, you can see why Anakin's goal was different than the Jedi's.

 

He was a slave with little attention, so he wanted to be a hero, to protect the people he loved and be well known by people.

[Lewisgil]

There are always unanswered questions in a good heroic epic. Having those unanswered questions is what makes the world seem deep and real. Trying to answer all of those questions that no one needs to know the answers to ruins the movie. When I watched Han Solo in the original series I didn't care what his childhood was like or where he grew up. It wasn't important to the movie. Anakin's childhood wasn't important either. What was relevant was that he was a young Jedi strong with the force who fell to the dark side. We don't need to go back to Tatooine to establish that..

 

This is befitting some individual attention.

 

You don't care about Han's past because you're not meant to. He's neither the protagonist or the antagonist of the story. He is a main character but not THE main character. The story is in no way about Han Solo. The Story is about Anakin Skywalker's rise, fall, and redemption. We just so happen to have gotten the redemption story first.

 

As I said in my post prior to this is what origin story does not show where the protagonist originates? A New Hope is the origin story of Luke Skywalker. The Phantom Menace is the origin story of Anakin Skywalker. Where they came from is essential to the story. Showing Anakin's attachment issues is essential to understanding WHY he fell to the Dark Side. They skipped the ten years of Palpatine endearing himself to Anakin, being a second mentor and a constant voice of "encouragement." How else were we to see why he fell?

 

You say there are questions best left unanswered, the questions you are saying that should have been so would have left us not understanding anything about the story. Star Wars is far more than just one big action sequence. That is all that would have been left if you take out the parts you are suggesting. If all you want is an action adventure in space, go watch The Ice Pirates.

[Slowpokeking]

EP I's characterization is all ok, the problem is that the battle was a little bit silly compare to OT and EP III.

[TheBentOne]

Because Liam Neeson did such a great job with what he was givin, it took me a while to really realize that I don't like Qui-Gon very much. I mean he constantly abuses his mind trick, steals, cheats and outright lies to get what he wants, and he constantly and recklessly endangers the life of a kid. I really can't fault the council for dislikeing Qui-Gon, he is the type of jedi my trooper would shoot repeatedly in the face.

 

Oh, and there is that whole HIS MIDICHLORIAN LEVELS ARE OVER 9000!!! thing.

[Slowpokeking]

Because Liam Neeson did such a great job with what he was givin, it took me a while to really realize that I don't like Qui-Gon very much. I mean he constantly abuses his mind trick, steals, cheats and outright lies to get what he wants, and he constantly and recklessly endangers the life of a kid. I really can't fault the council for dislikeing Qui-Gon, he is the type of jedi my trooper would shoot repeatedly in the face.

 

Oh, and there is that whole HIS MIDICHLORIAN LEVELS ARE OVER 9000!!! thing.

 

All he did was use his mind trick on the Gungan leader to spare Jar Jar. Obi Wan used it quite a few times in TCW.

[TheBentOne]

All he did was use his mind trick on the Gungan leader to spare Jar Jar. Obi Wan used it quite a few times in TCW.

 

He uses it to steal the gungan bongo, and trys to rob watto with it.

[KitRoakr]

You fail to realize that darth maul was considered one of the top sith duelists ever, and apprenticed to perhaps the most powerful sith.

 

I haven't read past this post yet, so this may be a repeat, but i wanted to back this up a little. The second half of this statement would support the idea of the Rule of Two. The design was such that each succesor would be more powerfull than thier predocessor. Hence why the aprentice kills his/her master. Only when the apprentice becomes more powerfull than his/her master will he/she be able to kill the master. At least that was Ban'e theory. If i the line from Bane to Sideous stuck to that close enough then it stands to reason that Sideous was the most powerfull in the line.

[SCNative]

Not sure if this point has been made, but I've heard it explained that in the Herioc Epic, one of the essential elements is the mentor. Qui-Gon serves as a mentor for Obi Wan. Obi Wan, despite being Anakin's master, is not Anakin's mentor. He is more in the companion role. This is important, because without a mentor, Anakin is naturally drawn towards Palpatine who offers him the mentorship he is lacking. Without a propoer mentor, Anakin fails to become the Heroic figure. Obi Wan later mentors Luke who is also mentored by Yoda. Luke succeeds in becoming the Heroic figure partly due to this advantage.

 

Another part of the Heroic Epic is the departure or loss of the mentor. Losing a mentor forces the Heroic character to rely on himself rather than the mentor and also allows the Heroic character to grow beyond the teaching and instruction of the mentor. Again, Qui-Gon serves this role for Obi Wan and Obi Wan and Yoda both serve this role for Luke. Anakin remains subservient to Palpatine and never has to rely on himself and thus never grows into his full potential as a Heroic Character.

 

So Qui-Gon really serves as an example of the mentoring system that Anakin is missing and helps illuminate this a reason for Anakin's fall.

[RDeanOU]

We got to see where Luke came from. It's only fitting that we see where his father came from as well. What origin story do you know of that does not show where the protagonist ORIGINATED?

 

Letting us see his emotional attachment to his mother in Episode I gives us the means by which to understand his reaction to the Sand People in Episode II, which further allows us to understand why he was so willing to become Palpatine's slave.

 

Introducing Qui-Gon lets us see why Obi-Wan was not the best choice to train Anakin but was still tasked with doing so.

 

Should it have been omitted completely? Absolutely not. Should that have been condensed into a prologue sequence at the beginning of Episode I? Absolutely.

 

Don't think that just because you whine and complain about how horrible the Prequel Trilogy was makes your love for Star Wars any greater than mine. I'm willing to bet I saw the Original Trilogy before you were even born. Star Wars is the foundation for all of my geek interests. That does not mean that I can't find the reasoning behind the decisions made.

 

I don't know very many heroic epics that take time to show us the childhood of the hero. We didn't see Luke's childhood. We saw him on the brink of manhood itching to take up his cause and fight. I could rattle off a list of heroes that we never see the childhood origins of if you'd like me to, but I think it would be easier to list the few that did show the hero's childhood.

 

It's a misconception that to understand Vader's origin we have to see him as a child. To understand his origins we need to understand where he came from and what changed him. Where he came from was the Jedi order. We don't need to see his childhood on Tatooine to understand the constraints and challenges of the Jedi...in particular one as strong in the force as Anakin Skywalker. His fall can also be illustrated in a much more elegant, compelling, and subtle way. Part of my point is that scenes like the one with the sand people amount to beating the audience over the head with Anakin's flaws and I think that is unsubtle and very poor writing.

 

To illustrate why this is bad let me point to what the original trilogy did instead. In Empire Strikes Back we see Luke take a step down the dark path. He is meditating and sees a vision of Han and Leia in pain. He wants to rush off to save them, but Yoda advises caution. He reminds Luke that by rushing off before his training is complete because of his emotional attachment to his friends he is endangering everything they fight and risk their lives for. He warns that this is a dangerous path, but Luke walks down it anyway. The thing is that we as the audience walk down that path with him. We want him to go save Han and Leia. That is a far more subtle way to write this character and illustrate how compulsive and headstrong he is.

 

Now imagine that instead of the slaughtering of Sand People women and children we had a handful of moments like the one in Empire for Anakin. Imagine that we had agreed with his choices instead of thinking, "Wow, what an obviously evil thing to do." Now, when he fell to the dark side we would have been upset. We should have been upset by this. Anakin was supposed to be the protagonist. Imagine that instead of spending time developing Qui-Gon Jinn and Jar Jar Binks we had instead spent two movies growing to love Anakin the way we loved Luke. Imagine how upsetting the final duel in Episode III would have been. Imagine actually being upset when Anakin's limbs were hacked off instead of being glad it finally happened.

 

I never professed to love Star Wars more than you. I simply said the fact that I love it entitles me to be upset that Lucas screwed the prequels up so badly. Not that it matters, but if you took that bet you alluded to you would lose. I watched the original trilogy when it was new. Also, I understand Lucas's reasoning behind his decisions with the prequels. It would be hard not to since he constantly hit me over the head with everything in the least subtle way possible. I just think his reasoning is flawed and wrong and that the prequels are bad filmmaking.

[Journeyer]

I got through 6 pages of replies with nary a mention of Qui-Gon Jinn being the first being in George Lucas' storyline to re-emerge from the force and the first in any sort of storyline to teach the ability to disappear completely into the force at death.

[Lewisgil]

I don't know very many heroic epics that take time to show us the childhood of the hero. We didn't see Luke's childhood. We saw him on the brink of manhood itching to take up his cause and fight. I could rattle off a list of heroes that we never see the childhood origins of if you'd like me to, but I think it would be easier to list the few that did show the hero's childhood.

 

It's a misconception that to understand Vader's origin we have to see him as a child. To understand his origins we need to understand where he came from and what changed him. Where he came from was the Jedi order. We don't need to see his childhood on Tatooine to understand the constraints and challenges of the Jedi...in particular one as strong in the force as Anakin Skywalker. His fall can also be illustrated in a much more elegant, compelling, and subtle way. Part of my point is that scenes like the one with the sand people amount to beating the audience over the head with Anakin's flaws and I think that is unsubtle and very poor writing.

 

To illustrate why this is bad let me point to what the original trilogy did instead. In Empire Strikes Back we see Luke take a step down the dark path. He is meditating and sees a vision of Han and Leia in pain. He wants to rush off to save them, but Yoda advises caution. He reminds Luke that by rushing off before his training is complete because of his emotional attachment to his friends he is endangering everything they fight and risk their lives for. He warns that this is a dangerous path, but Luke walks down it anyway. The thing is that we as the audience walk down that path with him. We want him to go save Han and Leia. That is a far more subtle way to write this character and illustrate how compulsive and headstrong he is.

 

Now imagine that instead of the slaughtering of Sand People women and children we had a handful of moments like the one in Empire for Anakin. Imagine that we had agreed with his choices instead of thinking, "Wow, what an obviously evil thing to do." Now, when he fell to the dark side we would have been upset. We should have been upset by this. Anakin was supposed to be the protagonist. Imagine that instead of spending time developing Qui-Gon Jinn and Jar Jar Binks we had instead spent two movies growing to love Anakin the way we loved Luke. Imagine how upsetting the final duel in Episode III would have been. Imagine actually being upset when Anakin's limbs were hacked off instead of being glad it finally happened.

 

I never professed to love Star Wars more than you. I simply said the fact that I love it entitles me to be upset that Lucas screwed the prequels up so badly. Not that it matters, but if you took that bet you alluded to you would lose. I watched the original trilogy when it was new. Also, I understand Lucas's reasoning behind his decisions with the prequels. It would be hard not to since he constantly hit me over the head with everything in the least subtle way possible. I just think his reasoning is flawed and wrong and that the prequels are bad filmmaking.

 

From this post, I gather you are more upset with the fact there was a lack of subtlety more so than anything else. I never said it was subtle. I also never said the stories had to show the hero in their childhood however,

 

I could name quite a few in which they do. Most of which Lucas admittedly drew inspiration from. The story of King Arthur, depending on which rendition you read starts from his conception and continues on to his adulthood. The stories of Perseus and even Heracles starts at their respective childhoods. Point being, he used a method of storytelling that has long since been on the back burners in American pop culture for a very long time.

 

There are many elements that I dislike about the Prequels, the story is not one of them. The presentation of some of the characters definitely could have used some more development. Each character proved to serve a purpose though. Including Jar Jar. Qui-Gon's only shortcoming was that he was under-utilized and killed off way too quickly. He did serve the purpose of giving the hero purpose and direction.

 

As for the subtlety point, it was lacking but, it was not so blunt as you put it. The massacre of the Sand People was more extreme than Luke's journey through the Dark Side Cave because Anakin actually ended up falling to the Dark Side in the end. Anakin was a more extreme version of Luke in every way. He had to be otherwise the story never would have made it full circle. It wouldn't have made sense if Anakin showed as much restraint, however little it may have been, as Luke. It wouldn't have made sense that he fell to the Dark Side if that were the case.

[Slowpokeking]

I got through 6 pages of replies with nary a mention of Qui-Gon Jinn being the first being in George Lucas' storyline to re-emerge from the force and the first in any sort of storyline to teach the ability to disappear completely into the force at death.

 

More than 1 Sith Lord did it before. Like Sidious in DE and Exar Kun.

[RDeanOU]

From this post, I gather you are more upset with the fact there was a lack of subtlety more so than anything else. I never said it was subtle. I also never said the stories had to show the hero in their childhood however,

 

I could name quite a few in which they do. Most of which Lucas admittedly drew inspiration from. The story of King Arthur, depending on which rendition you read starts from his conception and continues on to his adulthood. The stories of Perseus and even Heracles starts at their respective childhoods. Point being, he used a method of storytelling that has long since been on the back burners in American pop culture for a very long time.

 

There are many elements that I dislike about the Prequels, the story is not one of them. The presentation of some of the characters definitely could have used some more development. Each character proved to serve a purpose though. Including Jar Jar. Qui-Gon's only shortcoming was that he was under-utilized and killed off way too quickly. He did serve the purpose of giving the hero purpose and direction.

 

As for the subtlety point, it was lacking but, it was not so blunt as you put it. The massacre of the Sand People was more extreme than Luke's journey through the Dark Side Cave because Anakin actually ended up falling to the Dark Side in the end. Anakin was a more extreme version of Luke in every way. He had to be otherwise the story never would have made it full circle. It wouldn't have made sense if Anakin showed as much restraint, however little it may have been, as Luke. It wouldn't have made sense that he fell to the Dark Side if that were the case.

 

The problem was that Anakin wasn't simply more extreme. He was unlikeable. When your main protagonist is unlikeable you have failed as a flimmaker.

 

I understand that in the version of the prequels Lucas constructed these characters served a purpose. I am saying that version is bad. He created a mess that had unlikeable characters and dialogue that was eye-rollingly bad.

 

Part of the problem with this construction was the inclusion of characters like Qui-Gon Jinn who are not really necessary to tell the story of who Anakin is and why he fell to the dark side. You could have told that story much better without including his character.

[RDeanOU]

Be honest, were you upset when Anakin turned to the dark side? Were you upset when he was cut into pieces by Obi Wan?

 

Don't you think we should have been upset by these things?

 

Isn't it indicative that something is wrong in your movie when the audience doesn't care about these things?