How The Clone Wars devalued The Phantom Menace
Ask yourself: What is The Phantom Menace to you? "Annoying Jar Jar Binks"? "Duel of the Fates"? "The fact that, oh my god, Darth Vader had a mother"?..
Regardless, that is absolutely not important. Obviously, The Phantom Menace was intended from a screenwriting perspective as a starting point and status quo for all the characters. However, since the prequels were disliked in the U.S., the writers of The Clone Wars apparently decided that to apologize to fans for the prequels, they could safely spit on what was established in The Phantom Menace. But let us go into more detail.
How did little Anakin react to PadmĆ©ās harmless question about whether he was a slave:
"I'm a person and my name is Anakin!"
This lets us understand that for him, slavery is a serious problem, primarily a psychological one, and he is uncomfortable when it is brought up unnecessarily.
However, what do we see in The Clone Wars, in the Zygerria arc, when Ahsoka sarcastically asks, "Remind me, why do I have to play the part of a slave?", seemingly hinting at Anakin's past with clear resentment and an attempt to press a sore spot. This is not a harmless phrase, but a direct jab at a sore spot. However, how does Anakin react?
"I once played a slave, and I didn't like it. But I find the role of master suits me much better."
Those who will now start making excuses that he was just joking - people do not joke about such things, especially if it is a trauma for them. If it were a trauma for him, he would not deflect like that; the Anakin from the prequels is not that kind of character. There is also an argument (I am not joking, people actually told me this) that "slavery was never a trauma for Anakin, he used his status as a slave to protect Jar-Jar from Sebulbaās beatings." However, adapting to trauma is not the same as the absence of trauma. The fact that Anakin understood Sebulba would not kill him, because otherwise he would have to pay Watto, does not mean he did not care about his position as a slave; it just speaks to Anakinās intelligence, that he was not a fool. And yet, Anakin in The Clone Wars never showed later on that Ahsoka's phrase hurt him, although it should have. He continues to treat her well. They say that the portrayals of characters in The Clone Wars and the films are the same characters... In Anakinās case, it is hard to believe this statement, to put it mildly... And it is the same with the following example.
Obi-Wan in the first episode, when he sees that the planet is being invaded by the Trade Federation, which will strip all its inhabitants of freedom, and the Gungans, when everyone is in danger, refuse to cooperate with the Naboo even for their own sake because of openly idiotic principles:
"You and the Naboo are inseparable. What happens to them can only affect you."
Thus, Obi-Wan is presented to us as a perceptive character who can and is not afraid to call things by their names and think strategically.
But what does Obi-Wan say in The Clone Wars, after he saw that 20 years later Satineās enemies are still alive (and a person from HER government assured him they had been extinct for many years) and only dream of killing Satine, and two of HER close people turned out to be traitors (Vizsla and Merrick), she is clearly not coping without outside help, which speaks of her as a political bankrupt who continues to deny everything and play at independence/neutrality, although she herself, due to HER idiotic principles not to get her hands dirty, calling it pacifism, is not capable even for the sake of saving everyone on the ship of killing a terrorist, which would be more than justified, it would be self-defense (pacifismā inaction)?
"Mandalore is in good hands as long as you care for it."
This is blind idealization. No excuses will help here, everything is written in black and white - Satineās policy does not work without outside help. And the fact that Obi-Wan also gets involved in her adventures is not strategic thinking at all. He is trying to treat not the cause (Satineās entire policy) of Mandaloreās endless problems, but the effect, so that Satine would feel she is not to blame for anything and would stay afloat. However, this is exactly what led to her being overthrown by Death Watch in a day.
In the films, Obi-Wan never pandered to political infantilism... And never would have... Why they see the same characters in this - it is a mystery to me...
I could have also written about how PadmƩ was ruined, but that is simple. In the first episode, PadmƩ, even though she was queen, was not devoid of humanity and empathy, especially toward Anakin... In The Clone Wars, this simply does NOT exist. Moreover, they added Clovis, whose presence and the fact that PadmƩ did not tell Anakin about him makes her dishonorable... But that deserves a separate post...
In conclusion, what do we have?
We are dealing with total character erosion. The Clone Wars does not expand the universe, it flattens it, sacrificing internal logic and psychological credibility of the characters for the sake of creating "convenient" content. The screenwriters took ready-made, complex heroes and replaced them with caricatured versions that refuse to see the obvious and behave contrary to their own background. This is not development, but systematic degradation, turning a dramatic saga into a set of disconnected episodes where, for the sake of a "beautiful picture" and justifying the politics of some characters, others - the very ones we fell in love with in the first episode - simply cease to exist...