main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

PT Historical references in the prequels

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Tonyg, Jan 26, 2016.

  1. Thorin Oakenshield

    Thorin Oakenshield Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 9, 2016
    That is an interesting take. Darth Vader thought everyone he cared for was dead. Then Luke pops up. For all he knew Padme was still alive out there somewhere.. Something I have always wondered about is the the quest to stop people from dying. Did Vader give up on this after the "betrayal" from Padme? Is it ever explored again in the EU?
     
  2. Tonyg

    Tonyg Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 16, 2016

    No idea... I never read it. But if it is explored would be interesting. There is so much material to be explored as sequels in SW. What happens between ROTS and ANH? What Lea thinks of her father (or her real mother) Have the twins ever searched facts of their parents life? .. If I'd love to see some sequel it would be something like that.
     
  3. Thorin Oakenshield

    Thorin Oakenshield Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 9, 2016
    Apparntly Lucas' original design for the ST involved Han and leia's son and daughter exploring the history of the jedi and sith. The daughter would become a firm Jedi but the son would become fascinated by the dark side. It was supposed to be a full history of the sith which would have been cool. Also never liked the idea of Leia naming her son Anakin. She never knew him . Only Darth Vader, the evil man who tortured her and made her life a living hell. Always thought she should have named her son Bail after her adopted father. The more she learned about Anakin the more she would have respected Bail. For taking her in, the danger to his life and for putting her on the path to rebellion hero.
     
  4. CIS Droid

    CIS Droid AOTC 20th Anniversary Banner Winner star 5 VIP - Game Winner

    Registered:
    Oct 21, 2015
    It would be quite horrifying if generals and politicians would treat real human soldiers like battledroids from star wars. Trying to win battles by overflowing them with huge numbers of soldiers would result in huge losses of life, and unlike fictional droids, cant come back to life. The thought of soldiers piling their fallen comrades and taking what they can salvage from them, and ignoring the rest of them is a sad thought
     
    Thorin Oakenshield likes this.
  5. Tonyg

    Tonyg Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 16, 2016

    The funny thing is that I see Anakin more in Lea, than in Luke. She is always on the move, she is frank, honest character, but also impulsive and a little reckless. Luke is soft (not weak) sensitive (in the traditional meaning of this word) and he feels the good in people, the good in his father, also. Yes, he has some of the Anakin's characteristics, but softened by some Padme characteristics. Generally for me the more interesting sequel would be Luke and Lea finding who they really are, who were their parents, could they rebuild all that was destroyed by the Empire, paying homage to the memory of their parents who died with the end of the Republic (Anakin symbolically also died there). Unfortunately we have some rehash of ANH with some Vader wannabe….Ugh.
     
    Thorin Oakenshield likes this.
  6. Thorin Oakenshield

    Thorin Oakenshield Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 9, 2016
    Are you like me? Do you miss Lucas's involvement? Although I have to repectfully disagree with you about Kylo. Thought he was fantastic. My only critism of him is that he already destroyed the academy. That followed Vader's story just a bit TOO much. But everything else I loved about him. The struggle with the light. The idolisation of Vader. I have a theory on how he was turned, posted it on the "How Snoke seduced Ben" thread. Check it out and give me some feedback on it if you have time.
     
  7. Tonyg

    Tonyg Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 16, 2016
    Yes, you are right, but sometimes I wonder if Lucas doesn't showing that in the prequels. One f the most terrible parts of the wars is exactly this horrific ignoring of the life of the ordinary soldiers. Yes, the generals win the battle, but the ordinary people pay with their life for it. I live in a small coutry with large history of many battles and wars and in my nation's memory the number of the dead ordinary soldiers is always remembered, but I woder if it is the same with big entities as is the Galactic Republic, not to mention the Galactic Empire.
    So how Lucas is showing that? First, we have the battledroids are not alive, they are military robots, so we can send them in war and all we can loose is just some hardware. But then we have the clones who are live person, but nobody takes them as persons and they are ELABORATED to be used as means of war. This is horrendous and the Republic does it, not the separatist. So indeed the shroud of the Dark Side is fallen.
    But what if all this, the battles, the full controlled droids etc, is just a metaphor for the real human armies in our world?
     
    Thorin Oakenshield and CIS Droid like this.
  8. CIS Droid

    CIS Droid AOTC 20th Anniversary Banner Winner star 5 VIP - Game Winner

    Registered:
    Oct 21, 2015
    Good points, but while wars already have huge losses, if higher ups would treat soldiers like the battledroids are treated, with reckless strategies involving overwhelming the enemy with huge numbers of soldiers instead of real tactics the losses could be much higher.


    It is an interesting point that higher ups can see their soldiers as expendable as battledroids, i only think that when using real humans theres atleast gonna some sort of strategy used so the soldiers can live to fight another day. Its a scary thought if they would treat them as expendable as battledroids
     
    Thorin Oakenshield and Tonyg like this.
  9. Tonyg

    Tonyg Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 16, 2016
    I'll read your theory with pleasure. Could you post the link here? Thank you.


    But here is my biggest problem with Kylo and that defines my antipathy for him. Kylo killed his father. For no reason. Lucas could never write something immoral, I would say. When we see the falling of Anakin in ROTS we know that he is doing absolutely horrendous things and we know that he is obsessed with the Dark Side and we know why. Even Darth Vader in his darkest moments never crossed some lines (but crossed others and that’s why he fell). But here with Kylo we have only some psychotic and no motivated at all behaviour. Even when Vader chokes people, he explains it why (it is bad, of course, but he has some twisted reasons). And the relations between father and son, sister and brother, man and wife are crucial for Lucas SW saga. In some way they never break completely, well except in Episode 7.
     
  10. Thorin Oakenshield

    Thorin Oakenshield Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 9, 2016
    Hmm good point. But I think that is what makes Kyl fascinating. He is crossing lines no one eles has crossed. He is becoming irredeemable. It is both thrilling and frightening to see what will happen to him. I agree the movie could have given us a little more about how Kylo was seduced. But he is till a great character who could exceed Vader in popularity
     
  11. Tonyg

    Tonyg Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 16, 2016
    I don't want to be extreme, but enough real world psychopaths have crossed that line. If this makes Kylo irredeemable so why should we even care for him? He will be always this monster and that's it.
    Anyway, I read your theory. I would say (no matter that I don't agree in some points) that the filmmakers should hire somebody with your imagination: this is not a joke. Your theory is creative and it is not some rehash of other SW movies. But in Ep.7 we have too much unimaginative rehashes. If I wanted to show some conflict in Kylo I wouldn't make it through some stupid declarations (I'm conflicted, etc.) but by true conflict. What if something different happened on the bridge? What if Ben Solo really decided to go with his dad and suddenly something terrible happens: for example Ray, seeing how Ben is giving the saber to Han is thinking that he would kill him and make a shot from a blaster to Kylo and Han sacrifices and saves his son or if the blast shot damages only the bridge and again Han couldn't make it , trying to protect Ben from falling? Now this will be real conflict: for Rey, who will always feel guilty for Han (and wouldn't be the super-mega hero anymore) for Ben Solo who was about to go back and now he has to revenge his father death or something like that... And for Han would be heroic act. I would say that Lucas never made his character development by useless verbal declarations of the protagonists and this is the big difference...
     
    Thorin Oakenshield likes this.
  12. TaradosGon

    TaradosGon Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Feb 28, 2003
    My problem with the Trade Federation was that there was little context to what they were doing.

    In ANH, we learn there is a rebellion against an evil Empire. What caused the Rebellion? What were the evils done? It is never stated. It doesn't really matter though.

    Same with AOTC, we are told there is a secession movement, and that there is risk of war. What happened that things got so bad that thousands of systems wanted to secede? It doesn't really matter and would probably just bog down the story.

    But these are instances of secession and Rebellion. Things we see in the real world. We can each understand those concepts.

    In TPM, the villain was a large corporation, not a state. That corporation holds a government seat, and one would assume is based within the Republic.

    So when that governing body passes legislation to tax outlying Star systems, the Trade Federation invades another Republic world that is seemingly uninvolved in the matter, and holds that planet hostage. Then on top of this, Gunray states twice that the blockade is legal, which I'm inclined to believe, given his apprehension when Sidious asks him to illegally invade Naboo.

    This is just a weird political situation, and like ANH and AOTC, we get minimal background info, but in TPM'S case, I feel more exposition was required.

    In TCW there was a similar incident, where the TF blockades a planet to force them to join the CIS. The blockade is officially over outstanding debts that the planet owed, but unofficially was to force the planet to ally with the CIS and then the TF would lift the blockade.

    So, if Palpatine was the one that pushed for the taxes, then Palpatine (as Darth Sidious) contacts the TF and tells them the taxes are illegal and that they should blockade Naboo to force Palpatine to drop the tax issue, with the TF using debt as the legal justification for the blockade while offering to forgive the debt and lift the blockade, if taxes are repealed. That would have made sense.

    My issue is not that the idea is stupid, my issue is that it didn't receive good explanation, IMO.

    Because the crawl says that Naboo is blockaded to resolve the Trade dispute, making it sound like the Trade Federation's problem lay with the Senate and the planet was merely a hostage, yet when Padme contacts Nut Gunray, he speaks of getting results, as though he was waiting for the Naboo to do something.

    So to me, I understand the Sith motivation behind the ordeal. But the three parties (Republic Senate, Trade Federation, and Naboo) and how they fit together wasn't really clear. Nor how holding an innocent planet hostage is "legal." I figure there had to be a legal justification. I don't think Lott Dodd was going before the Senate and threatening Naboo and giving everyone the finger. I imagine there had to be a justification to make it ostensibly legal, but we never got insight into this ordeal.
     
  13. Tonyg

    Tonyg Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 16, 2016
    Well, my impression is that Lucas use to explain more with metaphors and visuals, that with text. I made this thread precisely because I see many allusions and references to the real world. Maybe some of them are more unclear, yes. But this is a general statement. Now, the details.
    First, we have no hostages here. It is just blockade. If the Trade federation have the right the control the space routes, it has the right to block it. So this type of blockade is absolutely legal and during Medieval times in Europe do that very often with the bridges for example. It was blackmailing really, but.. if someone owns the bridge and the bridge is the only road to pass, the others had to pay him. In this case all was legal but very unmoral.
    I would give an example with an event that is happening now in the frontier of my country and that is an contemporary example of absolutely legal blockade and the case is very close to the situation of Naboo. I live in the European Union that is very similar to Galactic Republic exactly in the mentioned case, because now, the Greek farmers want more funding of the Union (they have the right to have it) and they have blocked the frontier of Greece, it is their way to protest (yes, they have the right to do it) but their blockade block the commerce of my country, no matter that hey are not crossing the frontier ( that couldn't be legal) and no matter that they the right to do that. And of course the EU don't do anything about it. So this is a very contemporary case of legal blockade.
    By the way, the Trade Federation is not just corporation is a also union of star systems, governed by the rules of this commercial union (remember that in TPM Qui Gon and Obi Wan said that Tattoine is controlled by the Hutts, not by the Trade Federation). So the trade federation is not only some pseudo-corporation, is like state federation also.
     
  14. TaradosGon

    TaradosGon Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Feb 28, 2003
    I may have misused the word "hostage." Yes, it's blackmail, but they are starving out the Naboo, and cutting it off until taxes are revoked. But again, Lott Dodd holds a seat in the Senate and is in an awkward position where he has to sit in the same room as the guy that represents the world he is blockading. So unlike Medieval Lords strong arming each other, this is a bit different, because politicians often will claim some kind of moral or legal justification to save face. If Lott Dodd is openly blackmailing the Republic by blockading the Naboo, then the reputation of the TF is going to suffer severely (and image is important to any corporation). Thus I would think that as in TCW there is probably a dual cause for the blockade.

    E.g. Amidala owes the TF money and the Trade Federation seeks to collect, so that they can go before the Senate and say that it is 100% the Naboo's fault, meanwhile negotiating with Amidala telling her they will forgive the debt if she convinces Palpatine to go against the taxation legislation or something like that.

    I will admit, I knew nothing about what's happening in Greece and I thank you for bringing it up, because that is the closest thing I've heard to a real world example.

    I'm not aware of the Trade Federation being any kind of state entity. When I think of "Union" I'm thinking of a labor union, which is an entity that can bargain for workers. Though it is also described as a cartel, yet in the Trade Federation's case, 100% of its members are Neimoidians, it was never represented as being a diverse collection of peoples. It just seemed like a bargaining entity that held political sway to represent a trading corporation.

    As a member of a union, I find it in poor taste to paint unions/guilds in such a negative light. I'm not sure that's his intent, as I figure he was making a commentary against powerful corporations like the oil industry, biochemical firms, etc. Not things like the UAW. But with unions already being under flak, I feel like having the "Techno Union" being one of the big bad entities was in poor taste.
     
    Thorin Oakenshield and Tonyg like this.
  15. Tonyg

    Tonyg Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 16, 2016

    Yes, I'm sure Lucas didn't mean nothing about trade unions or something like that. And I agree completely that the Trade Union is a metaphor for a big greedy corporation, but I meant also that it was so strong that it has some pseudo state structure also: Nute is viceroy, not manager; they have POLITICAL representatives in the Senate, etc. etc. Speaking of European Union, it began as Trade zone also but now it tends to be something like super-state and it is not the only one example. That's why I called the Trade Federation something as pseudo state and not only corporation (but it doesn't mean that they are not greedy or something like that).
    You know, it amazes me how many people call TPM childish movie but one of the most mature political issues in SW can be found exactly in this movie.
     
    Valiowk likes this.
  16. Chyntuck

    Chyntuck Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jul 11, 2014
    I always thought of the Trade Federation as a metaphor for the sort of corporate influence in politics that lead to abusive practices and breaches of international law that are made to look legitimate. TPM was filmed well before the 2003 Iraq War, which is the most blatant example of that, but there are many other examples in recent history (e.g. the overthrow of Mossadegh, Shell in Ogoniland or even the 1991 Iraq War). The Legends EU expanded on that reference by making the conflict about Naboo's plasma reserves in Darth Plagueis. Also, I think that having the Trade Federation represented in the Senate is meant to show what would happen if lobbyists were represented in our government/legislative institutions.

    (BTW, great idea for a thread Tonyg! It's my first time posting here, but I've been reading since you started this, and the discussion is brilliant.)
     
    Tonyg likes this.
  17. Tonyg

    Tonyg Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 16, 2016
    Thank you Chyntuck , I think the comparison with the lobbyists is absolutely great, yes, maybe they have special status in the Senate, but I'm still wondering if as they have a viceroy and other political titles, if they really are not become some pseudo political federation also. I see Lucas has material for another 3 movies even in the PT era. Exciting!
     
    Chyntuck likes this.
  18. TaradosGon

    TaradosGon Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Feb 28, 2003

    I agree about the metaphor, but I just think it was poorly articulated.

    Again, I'm not saying the idea is bad. And really overall, I think that the PT is filled with brilliant ideas from Lucas, but I sometimes feel like the ideas become either convoluted and/or aren't given proper exposition.

    As a kid that grew up on the OT, I understood the Rebellion vs. Empire conflict. It's pretty much just straight forward good vs. evil. I didn't know how the Rebellion started, but it didn't matter. There is a cut scene in which Biggs tells Luke about the nationalization of business and how it would only be a matter of time until Owen's farm became property of the state, etc. But that exposition was unnecessary to a young kid. We just knew that the Empire did evil things, and even if we didn't know what evils it had done in the past, we could see what evils it was doing in the "present," such as attacking Leia's ship, slaughtering Jawas, killing Owen and Beru, building a weapon that could destroy a planet, using said weapon, etc.

    And I believe I was 12 when TPM came out, and I initially loved it. It wasn't difficult for me to follow. I knew the blockade was over taxes and that Palpatine wanted them to invade Naboo to create a crisis, etc. It was only when I got older where I began to question the rationality behind that plot and see it as bizarre. Because I would indeed say TPM is by far the most kid oriented of the SW films, but I feel like that central conflict is also the most complicated. I've seen comparisons drawn between the Trade Federation and East India Trading companies, but I'm not sure I knew about those companies as a 12 year old American. Things like the post-9/11 Iraq War and what's apparently happening in Greece hadn't happened yet.

    If you watch the OT as an adult, perhaps you can draw comparisons to many different world conflicts. If you're Chinese, you might immediately draw comparisons to the Chinese being victims of Japanese Imperialism during WWII; if you're American, you might think about the Revolutionary War; Haiti and France; India and Britain; Afghanistan and the USSR; Vietnam and America; etc. There are many examples. But even as a child with limited knowledge of history, it still speaks to many simply on the level of good vs. evil, white knight vs. black knight, etc.

    TPM was a much more esoteric focus, IMO. As an American kid, what the Trade Federation was doing doesn't really have that same kind of fantasy good vs. evil feel, and as an adult, I'm curious as to what Lucas was really going for. I get that he was making a commentary about not mixing corporations with government.

    I forget their names. It was something I learned in a Latin American history course I took in college, that there were two Americans in the government that had major investments in United Fruit in the 1950s (I think), which was a major landholder in Panama (or maybe Guatemala?) and that there was a nationalization effort going on in the country at the time, so to protect their economic interests, they were quick to cry "Communism" and advocate interference. So obviously corrupt individuals behaving amorally due to their own personal investments in a corporation.

    (EDIT: It was the Dulles brothers advocating a coup in Guatemala).

    But again, that's such an obscure thing in world history. I'm sure someone from that country would know all about it, but in American history, I'd never have known about it, had it not been for taking a college course. So, if Lucas was actually looking for historical inspiration or if he was just improvising in the case of the Trade Federation, I don't know. I feel like any real world historical comparisons that can be drawn are going to be very limited and it's not as accessible of a concept as something like revolution or secession.

    Because I've never really been curious about what kicked off the Rebellion. I feel like we are exposed to enough evil deeds from the Empire that we can kind of get an idea. I am kind of curious about the Secession of the CIS. But it's easier to see a historical example whether it's the American Civil War, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the independence of various colonies from European control; etc. There are many instances of new nations arising as older ones split (or risk a split).

    With the Trade Federation, there are things like the United Fruit case, but they are going to be so obscure to anyone that it doesn't immediately affect. So I'm guessing that rather than drawing on historical examples, Lucas intended it more as a prediction and warning.

    I know the Darth Plagueis novel made the case about the Trade Federation being after plasma, and that idea may work, but that still should have been articulated in the film itself, if that idea originated with Lucas. Otherwise it's just an idea that Luceno made up to try and make sense of things.

    Because it the Trade Federation was blockading Naboo to blackmail the Senate, then how does that work? The Jedi get sent to the Trade Federation to negotiate a settlement, seemingly between the Naboo and Trade Federation. But if the Naboo are being choked off just to blackmail the Senate, then there's no real negotiation that needs to take place between the TF and Naboo. Negotiations should be between the Republic and Trade Federation, because the crawl says that resolving the taxation dispute in their favor is the whole point of the blockade. And if the dialog is between the TF and Republic Senate, then such negotiations could happen at any given time right in the Senate itself. So Valorum sending Jedi to force a settlement seems to be in regards to resolving differences between the Trade Federation and Naboo, when the Naboo have nothing that the Trade Federation wants, if their goal is only to get taxation repealed.

    And yet there is the line


    As though Gunray was expecting some kind of response from Amidala. Her contacting him is considered a "result," again as though he wants something from the Naboo.

    Another thing is that if it is within the Trade Federation's legal rights to blockade their trade routes. Why only blockade Naboo? How is that a crisis? Naboo seems to be getting hurt, not the Republic. And why not choke off that whole route and cut off trade to the Outer Rim all together? That's a more pressing crisis than choking off one planet, when there's "no interest in the common good" anyway. And yet everyone rallies behind Amidala and gives Palpatine a sympathy vote. What's said and what's shown don't really jive, since there does seem to be compassion in the Senate, despite accusations to the contrary.

    So the Republic passes legislation on taxation. The TF blockades an arbitrary planet, and only that planet, and then seems to be waiting for some kind of response from Amidala, yet their conversation never gets to the point of what Gunray wants from her. Eventually he wants a treaty signed legalizing the occupation, but that's only after the illegal invasion begins. Prior to the invasion, what did Gunray want? What role does Amidala have in legislation passed by the Senate? Why are the Jedi dispatched to resolve the issue between the Naboo and TF, when the conflict is really between the Republic and TF?

    Again, I think there is actually a good idea buried in there, it just wasn't articulated well. When a 22 minute episode of TCW can justify a blockade in a logically sound way, I feel like a feature film could have done better. We don't see the Senate until after Qui-Gon and the rest get to Coruscant after getting off Tatooine. But I feel like the movie would have strongly benefited from a Senate scene early on in the film, where we could have seen Palpatine butting heads with Lott Dod in the Senate, to serve as exposition as to what's going on. Is Palpatine getting blackmailed into voting down the legislation (this is never said if he even supports it)? Is Naboo getting blackmailed for it's plasma? Is Naboo in debt to the Trade Federation? etc. We're told that the Trade Federation has a problem with Senate taxation in the opening crawl, yet from that point on there is implied to be blackmail going on, not toward the Senate (or not just the Senate), but to Naboo itself, yet we never know what that entails. The way Amidala says "the Trade Federation has gone too far this time" even makes me think that they have a history, which we never see nor hear about.

    Or even had they removed Lott Dod as a character and established that he walked out of the Senate, the Trade Federation declares war on the Republic, invades Naboo, and then tries to get Amidala to sign a treaty, conceding her planet to Naboo, while the Senate debates what to do. That could have worked too. Instead the war was a secret that Lott Dod denied, the only mention of taxes that comes up again is Palpatine stating that the invasion arose from a conflict that began over taxes, and with the issue being over Republic legislation while there are hints at demands being made of the Naboo, there's just a lot going on there that I think Lucas should have taken 5 minutes to include another scene with a little more exposition. Because I do feel like had that central conflict been articulated better, then TPM could have been a much better movie (IMO).


    But specifically in regards to historical comparisons, I think any comparisons to the Naboo crisis are coincidental. I think Lucas meant for it to be more of a warning about where things are headed, not actually inspired by anything that has happened. And I think because he didn't model it off of a real world incident (assumption) that it may be why his ideas are a little disjointed, IMO. Because had he just used a full blown East India Company analogy and had the Trade Federation as an entity openly waging war to acquire space ports and open new markets, with the Republic being ill equipped to handle the situation due to lack of an army, then there wouldn't be an issue in my mind. But instead the war was covert, Lott Dod denied an invasion, the TF was obviously trying to save face in the Senate, despite also blackmailing the Senate, they had unclear motives with the Naboo, and aside from the opening crawl, the taxation issue really never comes up again.
     
    Ezon Pin likes this.
  19. Tonyg

    Tonyg Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 16, 2016
    Actually and maybe because I saw OT as an adult, I thought I was too simplistic and even boring in terms of political metaphors and comparisons (For the record, I saw PT also an adult). Classical hero movie, nothing special, but the interesting thing for me in OT is the personal arc, the relation between father and son; master and pupil, temptation and redemption. Because Luke also suffers a temptation and unfortunately first it come trough the good guys, not trough the Emperor: kill your father and you will be the hero... It is horrendous, isn't it? Anyway, the political plot is very simple: the Nazi looking Empire is bad, the rebels are good, no matter that they haven't these resources and the political power. This is a very popular theme: how the small people destroy the big menacing entity.

    But the PT are more complex in that aspect. They are supposed to be complex, because they must show not only the falling of Anakin, but also the falling of the Republic. The Republic didn't fall because some bad guys from somewhere came and destroyed it. No, it wasn't because of the Sith, they just used the opportunities. The Republic fell in decay, and this decay is something subtle, it looks like it is still its Golden Era, but the process is already began. It happened million times in the human history, it happens today again, I already mentioned the European Union, but it looks so close to Republic of the PT era... Now, what is happening in Naboo? Let's put it simple: a small (but highly civilized) planet is in trouble because of failed negotiations of taxations. It is always about money and greed, isn’t it? ;) The planet is part of the Galactic Federation, i.e. the Republic, but it is very close to its frontiers and too far from its centre, Coruscant. So this crisis looks insignificant. (PHANTOM menace, right? not big menace, after all). But this insignificant crisis in the corner of the Republic world shows very important thing: the Republic already cannot react, cannot solve that crisis, the Republic is weak and ineffective; it already cannot solve its own problems. Because , after all, the Nabooans solve the crisis by their own means, and the Senate didn't do anything, nor the Chancellor did anything ( I mean the old chancellor). The paradox is, as we are informed in AOTC, that even the Court is unable to do anything and Nute Gunray continued to be viceroy.

    In terms of political process, this is a test: the inept Republic is almost ready to accept its new governor, the emperor (or it will break up, anyway and the following separatist crisis proves that). If we look at this as one entire movie (as Lucas said, the PT is made as one big movie), we can see how in this small isolated crisis happened one of the most important political events of the Galactic: Palpatine become a Chancellor (his story indeed looks very similar to the story of Caesar). So the phantom menace was bigger that anyone expected. Actually, I like these subtle, small details in PT. They are their charm and bigger quality. Lucas is grow up not only on age in PT he is grown up in many aspect and one of them is to show us something more complicated. I know that many people don't like that, but this the realistic approach, this is how the things happen, because the so called good guys are also responsible for the bad things in this case. Speaking of that we see also why the big, all powerful Jedi Order fell: not because Vader and the clone troopers slaughtered the Jedi, this was just consequence. We see the problems still in TPM with their attitude to Anakin: they are too literal and too stick to rules, they cannot accept something different, but that means that they are unable to adapt to the change and the change is coming: it is still invisible, but it is big.
     
  20. TaradosGon

    TaradosGon Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Feb 28, 2003

    I understand the crisis over Naboo insofar as that the Senate was ill equipped to do anything and that the Naboo were pretty much left to be on their own and much of the Outer Rim seemed to feel the same way, hence the issues in TPM snowballed into a succession movement by the time of AOTC.

    My issue is with the lack of a good historical analogy for what was going on. I actually would have preferred had Lucas drawn from history more than he had. For instance, he mentions that Palpatine's rise to power was inspired by a combination of Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler, yet at the same time, Hitler's rise has little in common with any of these at least until ROTS. How he actually ascends to power in ROTS, fabricating a war (Hitler), the Jedi denouncing Palpatine and trying to remove him from office (the Senate accusing Caesar's action in Gaul as illegal), and "attempts on his life" leading to becoming ruler for life (Napoleon), does have historical comparisons, as does Palpatine's exclamation "I am the Senate" ("I am the state" - Louis XIV)

    But prior to that, Palpatine was just depicted as mild mannered and passive. He doesn't do much in TPM but whisper in Amidala's ear. He gets a sympathy vote. Amidala was the strong ruler that challenged the TF, not Palpatine. Palpatine advocated accepting TF control for the time being.

    In AOTC, again Palpatine is very much passive. He asserts that he won't let the Republic be split in two, but he is never shown any strength. It's even Amedda that suggests Palpatine be given emergency powers and ends up manipulating Jar Jar.

    Palpatine just seems like he's along for the ride, when Hitler, Napoleon, and Caesar were very much involved in their own ascensions to power. Hitler was a strong orator and effectively used propaganda and had a private force. Caesar was waging a war in Gaul that the Senate had a problem with and said was illegal, recalling him to Rome, which led to a war over each side claiming the other was doing something illegal (again, there are shades of this in ROTS, but not really prior to that). Napoleon was a General and won power through a coup as well as prestige from his success on the battlefield.

    So we do see shades of these three individuals in Palpatine in ROTS, but really before that he just seems passive. Not some great orator, not a great general expanding the influence of the state, and not some particularly powerful figure. In AOTC. Palpatine is granted emergency powers like Hitler or Caesar, but again he had been shown to do almost nothing to depict him as any kind of strong leader.

    As far as the blockade goes. Looking up historical blockades, almost every single one I can find was performed either as economic sanctions against a party perceived to be in violation of international law, or as an act of war. In the PT, the blockade is treated as neither. The Naboo are not accused of anything, and there is no war. The opening crawl makes it sound as though the blockade is being used to blackmail the Senate into defeating proposed legislation regarding the taxation of outlying trade routes.

    I understand this conflict is because Palpatine wants to create a crisis and show the inefficiency of Valorum's regime and get him removed from office, but that goal is from the perspective of Sith goals. The Trade Federation would have to have something to gain from this conflict and Palpatine would have needed to have convinced them somehow that invading Naboo was somehow in their best interest and legal.

    It could have been as simple as Palpatine telling them to blockade Naboo because it was weak and pacifist and so was a low risk target. Yet the crawl states that Jedi are dispatched to settle the dispute while the Senate is debating the crisis. Thus implying that the main conflict is between senators in favor of the legislation and the Trade Federation and its allies.

    Yet, when the Jedi show up, Palpatine refers to plans needing to be accelerated and orders Gunray to begin landing his troops.




    Thus it seems like the invasion was always part of the plan, yet Gunray is apprehensive about the legality of this course of action. So I don't think the plan was just for the blockade to blackmail the Senate into repealing the taxes and then the Trade Federation was just going to pack up and go home.


    And so assertions about the legality of the blockade seem to be a bluff. It was legal insofar as that the Senate had not voted on the issue yet, but Rune and Nute seemed to be aware that the Senate was likely to rule against the Trade Federation. And so they wanted to invade and get the treaty signed before it could come to a vote. The occupation of Naboo would be legal before the Senate ever had a chance to rule the blockade as illegal.

    But again, the invasion seemed to always be part of the plan, yet Gunray seemed to be waiting for something from the Naboo. When Amidala contacts him, he is pleased and refers to it as "getting results" before Amidala responds with a warning that the blockade will soon be ended. To which Gunray then tells Rune that they must hurry to disrupt Naboo's communications.

    So it seems to me that they wanted a legal occupation, perhaps hoping that Amidala was going to unconditionally surrender to the "legal" blockade, but that when that didn't happen, they had to accelerate their plans by conducting an illegal invasion that they hoped to have made legal after the fact by coercing the queen to sign the treaty.

    Or maybe the Trade Federation wanted Amidala to sign over rights to the planet's plasma. Or maybe other systems along that trade route were firmly controlled by the Trade Federation while Naboo was the gateway planet for trade into the Outer Rim and the only system standing in the TF's way of having a monopoly and so wanted her to agree to a trade deal. Or maybe the taxes work system to system, and that Naboo was in the Free Trade Zone (which is never mentioned to exist in the films) but was electing to enforce Republic taxes, and Gunray wanted to coerce her into remaining in the Free Trade Zone.

    There seems to be two conflicts going on. The argument in the Senate over taxes, which is only mentioned twice in the entire film (one mention being in the crawl itself). And then there is this secondary conflict in which Gunray wants something from Amidala, but we never learn what the initial plan was. If the argument is entirely over taxes, then really Amidala has no say in the matter and that exchange between Gunray and Amidala doesn't make a lot of sense. But the plot accelerates so fast that whatever the pre-invasion "legal' goal was is just glossed over in favor of the illegal invasion. The whole issue of taxes just pretty much gets glossed over. So the villain, rather than an Empire, is a trade firm, and the main goal of this firm is just glossed over.

    I understand what Sidious had to gain. I understand that the Trade Federation did things because Palpatine told them to. What I don't understand is what the Trade Federation hoped to gain. Because it seemed to be acknowledged by Rune Haako that the Senate ruling against the Trade Federation was a foregone conclusion. So I'm not sure they hoped to gain anything on that front. They seemed interested in acquiring something from Naboo itself, possibly even control of the planet itself, but why they try to kill the Jedi, illegally invade, and risk war over this planet is never said.


    Because if it was all about blackmailing the Senate, choking off the entire trade route not just blockading a single system on the fringe of the Republic would have been more effective. And if it was all about acquiring Naboo, why bother setting up a blockade and even go through that farce? Why not just block Naboo's communications and overrun them before they even know what's going on? I mean, the occupation of Naboo took less than 24 hours.

    Something similar happens with TFA, where the opening scroll says the Republic supports the Resistance, Hux reasserts this later on. But there is a cut scene in which we find out this isn't the case. And despite that scene being cut, canon seems to continue to run with it as canon, as the official site continues with the assertion that Leia is considered a war monger and her political career was terminated.

    So I left that movie seeing comparisons with things like the cold war, where a superpower would arm lesser powers to fight their enemies, but then canon seems to assert that no, Leia is not well liked by the Senate and it doesn't treat her seriously. Which I can only chalk up to sloppy writing.

    So by no means is it an issue unique to TPM, but when the crawl asserts that it's all about taxes, and then taxes hardly come up again and instead it's about the acquisition of Naboo for unknown reasons, to me that's just an oversight in proofreading.

    It happens in ROTS too in which the original idea seemed to be that Anakin agreed with Palpatine to an extent and was already in Palpatine's office when Mace and the other Jedi arrive. He seemed to already have been corrupted to an extent. In that version, his later dialogue to Obi-Wan makes more sense when he accuses the Jedi of plotting to take over. Since indeed, Mace and Ki-Adi-Mundi had discussed removing Palpatine from office and that the Jedi would have to take control of the Senate. So if Anakin was with Palpatine all along, began to see the Sith as not being so bad, and then Mace walks in to arrest/kill Palpatine, that move by Mace would blindside Anakin.

    But instead it was changed such that Anakin rejects Palpatine, runs off to tell Mace that Palpatine is a Sith, arrives after the fight, knowing full well why Mace was there. And yet still tells Obi-Wan that he should have known that the Jedi were plotting to take over, even though he should know that assertion is 100% false and that they were out just to remove the Sith from power. Those late game changes just lead to weird hiccups in writing. They don't necessarily break the movie, but they are kind of jarring.

    Because though Anakin's behavior was modeled more after Greek Tragedies and tragedies of William Shakespeare, I do see a bit of Brutus in him too.

    Caesar went to war against Pompey, who he considered a traitor. Brutus was allied with Pompey, but Caesar forgave him and gave him a governorship. The Jedi were sworn enemies of the Sith, but Palpatine purged the Jedi "traitors" yet kept Anakin on, making him his apprentice. And in the end, Brutus turns on Caesar, participating in his assassination, and Vader turns on Palpatine. But for a time, Brutus and Caesar are close friends, and Brutus is part of Caesar's regime. And the original idea to me seemed to be more like that. Anakin has a close friendship with Palpatine, and though Palpatine turns out to be a Sith, Anakin is corrupted enough to stay on the fence, and ultimately pledge himself to the Sith, while the rest of the Jedi are killed.

    But in the final product, we don't get that and instead Anakin is adamantly against Palpatine and only agrees to serve him to save Padme, but then even after Padme is gone, he just continues on as someone that serves Palpatine and believes in the Empire.
     
  21. Tonyg

    Tonyg Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 16, 2016
    Actually, it can be found a good historical analogy even in the WWII. Well, we already discussed that with Lt. Hija in another thread.
    For the record, Hitler didn't rise elaborating a war. The war begins in 1939, the Nazi gain the elections in 1933. They didn't have the absolute majority so they made a little conspiracy to “elaborate" an emergency situation and practically to gain that majority (Palpatine used the same method BEFORE the war). I know the story in details, because 2 of compatriots were falsely accused and involved in this crisis, called the Leipzig process. Why , if they weren't Germans? Exactly for that, they are foreigners, so nobody will sympathize with them, they are from small, insignificant country (sound familiar, isn't it ;) ) and also they belonged to the communist opposition in that country, which means that the mentioned country itself will have enough obstacles to protect them. So they were the ideal collateral damages, if I can say so. Well, they survived it, but anyway, that's why I have such strong sympathy for the small countries that are always used by the big ones in their conspiracies. ;)
    Also one strong historical reference can be found in the history of WWII. Many people think that the first victory of Hitler was the invasion of Poland. All the opposite, the first victory of Hitler is Czechoslovakia, in that time a highly civilized country with strong economy, but absolutely weak in political aspect. And Germany gains that battle without shouting a bullet, they practically 'take' it with almost legal political actions. ;) Sounds familiar, because Naboo was in similar situation.
    So what is the prize of the Trade Federation? First, the rich and technologically advanced Naboo. (Just look at their cruisers. They are absolutely wonderful, even in Tattoine everybody knows what is to have a Nabooan cruiser or maybe Nubian was the right word?) Second, if they control the planet, they will have political influence or more political influence in the Senate. Third, if they knew (I'm sure they knew) that in some way Darth Sidious would gain more power during the rule of the new Chancellor, so they will gain that too, because they were businessmen, interested in gain more riches and power, but without war. That's why they asked if that was legal. They wanted to "press" the Naboooans and the Senate, not to inflame a war. That's why they were so careful in talking about "invasion" and "blockade", not war. They didn't wanted war, they wanted to gain trough political intrigues. Speaking of that, it is not so simple to cut the communications and win. People of Naboo resisted, escaped, rebelled. So it is impossible to gain for 24 hours. Even Israel gained its famous fast war in one week and it wasn't a war of invasion type.

    Also, one crucial point about Palpatine. He is the active character of PT. he had never been passive, he was in the shadows, he acted hidden, but passive, not at all. He is the perfect macchiavellist governor: soulless, merciless, but smart. He acted as the French say as eminence grise, i.e. in the beginning nobody knows that he is the one that moves all the figures of the chessboard. Absolutelly astonishing and menacing potrayal, as a mix of Richelieu and Caesar.
    By the way, whispering in the ear of Padme is not a passive , but a clouded action. He acts in absolutely devilish way, temptation is his bigger weapon. He makes Padme to propose the voting for apparently good reasons, but she knows that she is betraying Valorum, he seduced Dooku, he used the greed of the Trade Federation, he seduced Anakin. He fails only to control completely Padme who go back in Naboo in desperate attempt to save her people, but Padme is not alone in this and in OT he fails to seduce Luke but mostly because his father is there, so in the end Anakin saves his son, himself and the world of the ultimate evil.
     
  22. TaradosGon

    TaradosGon Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Feb 28, 2003

    Oh, I'm quite aware that he's a busy little bee in regards to working in the shadows. But when it comes to his public persona, he doesn't really come across as a take charge kind of guy. Amidala was. Amidala was going to go back to her planet and fight the Trade Federation, even if it meant risking her life. Palpatine accuses the bureaucrats of controlling the Republic and accuses Valorum of facing "baseless accusations" of corruption, which I think was to put the idea in Amidala's head that maybe he is indeed corrupt, especially when he sides with the Trade Federation on the issue of appointing a committee. We see this in TCW a bit, where public attitude is turning against the Jedi and Palpatine publicly denounces such views, setting himself up to look like a strong advocate of the Jedi, such that when he later accuses the Jedi of treason, nobody is going to question him as having an ulterior motive.

    So when he tells Amidala that Valorum is facing "baseless" accusations of corruption, I think he is simultaneously putting the idea in his head that Valorum could be corrupt, but also simultaneously denouncing those accusations to make himself appear like he doesn't believe such accusations. Same thing as when Palpatine is "surprised" to be a nomination for Chancellor, he is actively making it appear like it was unexpected to dissuade people from suspecting it was his goal. He advocated a stronger Chancellor that would not ignore the plight of Naboo, yet even after Valorum is removed from office, he advocates accepting Trade Federation control. To what end? That's not conducive to making him look like a powerful candidate for Chancellor who is taking a hardline stance against corruption.

    Yes, I agree that Palpatine was quite the schemer from the shadows, but in public, it seems like all of this is falling into his lap. Hitler was actively giving speeches, Napoleon staged a coup, Caesar went to war with his main political opponent.

    With Palpatine, he gets Amidala to make the call for a vote of no confidence against Valorum, and she appears to be the strong, defiant ruler, while Palpatine just sits back. Then it comes as a "surprise" when he is nominated as a candidate for the Chancellor position, as though sympathy caused it to fall in his lap unexpectedly. In AOTC, he doesn't do anything but sit there and look helpless while Amedda is the one advocating he be given emergency powers.

    And in TCW, we do see this continuation of a passive Palpatine who tries to manipulate the Senate, but is fairly passive publicly.

    And in ROTS, the only time we actually see him really become assertive is after it is already revealed that he is a Sith.

    Had ROTS' cutscenes been preserved in the final cut of the film, then we would have seen Palpatine openly defiant and mocking of Padme's committee and petition.

    Palpatine made it seem like he would be the guy to reign in the bureaucrats and be the strong leader that didn't tolerate any kind of corruption. Instead he was the guy that just kind of went along with whatever the Senate wanted (though he did manipulate the Senate into granting Palpatine what he secretly wanted). But at the end of the day, when Palpatine declares himself Emperor to thunderous applause, it just comes across as awkward, since Palpatine was never depicted as being a really strong Chancellor. He always seemed meek and passive. Not someone that was key in getting the Republic through The Clone Wars. The only thing that he did on that front was authorize the Clone Army, but for being given emergency powers and the ability to curtail the Senate, he's not shown to do that. And what references there were in ROTS of him doing that (making repeated amendments to the Constitution, etc) ended up being cut.

    Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, and Hitler were all confident, powerful leaders that others would look to for strength in a crisis, and who gave up their rights in exchange for greater security. Palpatine doesn't seem like the kind of personality, in his public appearances, that anyone would really trust to hold things together. He seemed more like a servant of the Senate, and if the Senate had a strong grasp of things, then there's no reason to make Palpatine Emperor.

    I feel like those scenes about the Delegation of 2000 should never have been cut, because those were some of the only scenes to allude to Palpatine being a strong figurehead taking powers granted by the Senate to create an orderly regime. And I feel like AOTC and TCW should have foreshadowed that side of Palpatine too. Instead he was just kind of the gently, "reluctant," "surprised," politician.
     
    Thorin Oakenshield likes this.
  23. Thorin Oakenshield

    Thorin Oakenshield Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 9, 2016
    Wow .Thank you for your kind words. Coming from someone as intelligent and as passionate as you, I am tuly humbled. This thread is a really fantastic one. It shows the amount of thought that went into the prequels. I now understand your critiscm of TFA. I am fascinated to hear your idea's about Luke's state of mind in the new movies, if you have the time. I was thinking today that Luke may be in a depression. Perhaps wondering if the Jedi have a role to play at all in the new galactic order. I think it will be Rey that will knock some sense into him.
     
    Tonyg likes this.
  24. Thorin Oakenshield

    Thorin Oakenshield Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 9, 2016
    Hi guy. Great conversation. Just about your last point. Isn't that the genius/evil of Palpatine. He appears gentle and speaks well but is really corrupt? To be honest he reminds me a bit like Vlad Putin.
     
  25. Tonyg

    Tonyg Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 16, 2016

    Agreed, that's why I called him eminence grise. I would add Richelieu and Cesare Borgia and maybe Fernando de Aragon as examples of the real prototypes of Palpatine. Putin is different, he is cool and menancing, yes, he prefers to make combinations in the shadows and suddenly to make it public, Palpatine has different manners. He looks harmless but he is very dangerous.
     
    Thorin Oakenshield likes this.