PT Logic Flaws in the Prequel Trilogy

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by janstett, Sep 13, 2011.

Moderators: Bazinga'd
  1. Jedi_Corin_Daan Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2010
    star 3
    Yeah, that and why are they running to go get a transport? Why doesn't the clone radio one in? This whole scene always puzzled me. It seems like Lucas had to have Padme around for every scene, but didn't want her mixing it up with the Jedi/Sith. I also love how she is fighting against the creation of an army, then the army rescues her from impending death and suddenly its ok and we never hear her asking any questions about where they came from or why the Jedi are commanding them or why someone would have ordered the creation of an army several years before, etc. I'd think Padme would be the one leading an inquest committee on this issue.
    kubricklynch likes this.
  2. Valairy Scot Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    1. I would assume Anakin struggled to get the reentry angle correct (one reason so many things burn in our atmosphere and the shuttle doesn't) and also the lack of proper shields. It doesn't bother me.

    2. Per the novel, an old abandoned runway back from the days when they needed runways. It doesn't bother me it's not explicit in the film.

    3. It's been addressed by others.


    So many posters want to address SW - especially the PT - as hard sci fi. It's NOT. It's space opera with many elements of sci fi fantasy. It only has to make sense in-universe. You'll go nuts trying to make it fit out-of-universe and why drive yourself crazy unless you find it entertaining to speculate.

    The best tool for enjoying the movies is suspension of belief, IMHO. YMMV.
  3. DarthWuher Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 15, 2010
    star 1
    I do agree with suspending disbelief but only to a point. You have to maintain some realistic order or logic, otherwise the movie will be utter nonsense.
  4. DRush76 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2008
    star 4
    When Anakin pilots the crippled Separatist ship at the end of the Battle of Coruscant, the ship burns up on reentry. Only we've never, ever seen any ship in the Star Wars universe burn up on reentry. Similarly, he lands the ship on a runway on Coruscant. We've never seen any ship in the Star Wars universe that didn't land vertically, and every single one of them has skids not wheels. Why would there be a runway there in the first place?


    How do you know that runways never existed on Coruscant or anywhere in the Republic/Empire? Because you've never seen one in previous movies? You judging a movie for lack of logic, because you've never seen a ship burn into re-entry or land on a runway before, in a STAR WARS movie?
  5. CaptainYossarian Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 30, 2003
    star 3
    Objects illuminated by binary stars casting only one shadow across the landscape.

    On Tatooine the suns' proximity to each other and distance from the planet mean they act like a single light source.
  6. Jedi_Ford_Prefect Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2003
    star 4
    Plus, it's an entire doggone planet. I'm willing to bet they'd have landing strips in plenty of places on the surface, if for no other reason than an emergency-- like the one in the film. The Coruscant equivalent of breakdown lanes.
  7. Jedi_Corin_Daan Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2010
    star 3
    Although I doubt that a runway would be very practical considering the types of spacecraft we've seen. Most are VTOL craft, not planes with wheels on their landing gear.
  8. DRush76 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2008
    star 4
    What if Anakin had no choice but to land the craft in that manner, considering the damage to it? Has anyone considered this? It looked as if Anakin simply landed the damaged craft on its belly.
  9. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    It could also be that the area was more akin to a parking lot than an airport runway. They were just lucky that that particular part of the landing strip was empty.

    And yeah, Anakin had no choice but to land the ship the way he did.
  10. Jedi_Corin_Daan Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2010
    star 3
    I agree with the emergency landing part. Anakin had no choice but to land the ship that way. It's the landing strip being there in the first place that is weird. Obi-Wan clearly identifies it as a "landing strip" just moments before they crash. The main point is, what is a landing strip doing on a planet where all of the vehicles we have seen use only advanced VTOL tech? Is it a relic from the past when landing gear included wheels and not just skids?

    There are a few things that I didn't like about this. First the ship is clearly a monster and coming into that strip REALLY fast. The impact of landing it going to be huge, and yet they are only wearing safety belts across their laps?! And the impact just throws them forward a bit? No, I think not. And the ship came to a stop way too soon. The thing was the size of an aircraft carrier. It would have plowed into the city for miles.

    Also, what was with knocking down the air traffic control tower? Weren't there people in that tower? How come there were no repercussions for that. In the next scene where Anakin gets his "day with the politicians", they should have been going to help straighten out the aftermath of that landing. If wrecking the tower was just thrown in there by the effects department to show off their "awesome skilz", it was a pretty sadistic scene considering Obi-Wan's comment "Another happy landing".
  11. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    Could be a relic, could be a parking zone, could be some kind of emergency strip, could even be some kind of road or flat-topped edifice that Obi-Wan calls a "landing strip" out of convenience. Many ways to regard it.

    It all really depends on the amount of friction between the strip and the ship. Just before touchdown (er, crashdown) Anakin remarks, "Were coming in too hot!" as if the ship needs to be cool enough to not burn itself up and break apart with the ensuing friction. Then again, they land relatively safely, anyway. So, who knows?

    Could have been people, could have been droids, could have been totally automated or even abandoned. Obviously, the fact they wreck another building -- and one that might have had people or droids in it -- after a very fraught sky-ride to the surface makes Obi-Wans remark sarcastic, and possibly sadistic. But then, if you watch the movie closely enough, youll see that the Jedi are pretty sadistic, in general. The title even refers to them (i.e., the Jedi have unconsciously become the Sith).
  12. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    I don't think so. The Jedi are arrogant and dogmatic, but that doesn't make them Sith. There is a fundamental difference. The events depicted in the bulk of the film can't be construed as the Revenge of the Jedi.
  13. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    Yes, they can. Firstly, Lucas originally considered calling Episode VI "Revenge of the Jedi", but this was, ultimately, changed to "Return of the Jedi". So, unbeknown to the Jedi in the constructed fiction of the films themselves, the title to Episode III is literally representative of the Jedi becoming the Sith (for the title of Episode VI, the first word was changed; and for Episode III, the last word has been changed, going from "Jedi" to "Sith"). Secondly, Lucas has Palpatine say, "The Sith and the Jedi are similar in almost every way", suggesting that they are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable (and since the title is "Revenge of the Sith", the Jedi are naturally implicated). Thirdly, the Jedi seem pretty vengeful in ROTS, doing some evil things, like Yoda beheading those clones and later sticking his saber in anothers chest, as well as his aggressive confrontation with the Emperor; meanwhile, Obi-Wan takes on Anakin, which ends with him cutting off Anakins limbs and leaving him to burn to death (contrasted with the Emperor arriving and putting a healing hand on Anakins forehead -- a tender moment of tactility Obi-Wan never extends to Anakin). Fourth, the films of George Lucas explore the meaning of truth and identity, and the limitations of labels and words (just consider "THX-1138", as a film and film title). Personally, I think that latter action of Obi-Wans is about as vengeful an action as they come, especially when one considers the deep emotions involved. Luke spends a good chunk of the final movie in the saga directly appealing to Anakin, and even lays his life down for him -- thats quite the contrast with lecturing a person (the same person, no less) and leaving them to die in agony. If you dont think the Jedi are horribly vengeful in Episode III, well, then, I guess you dont see it.
  14. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    That was a different film.

    This is the opposite part of the saga, when Palpatine takes over and the Republic becomes the Empire.

    In this film the Jedi are mostly wiped out, except for a few survivors who end up as refugees on crap planets. That's hardly revenge on their part.

    The title refers to the revenge of the Sith which was spoken of by Maul in TPM.

    Only in your imagination. In reality, Lucas didn't originally consider calling Episode III "Revenge of the Jedi", a title which wouldn't have made sense. Furthermore, you strangely cite the Episode VI change in title from "Revenge of the Jedi" to "Return of the Jedi" while simultaneously denying the concept which served as the basis for that change in the first place.

    Or that that was what Palpatine was manipulating Anakin into believing on some level, which was the whole point of the scene. There's actually quite a lot contained in that "almost", including a major alignment difference and a prohibition against using a certain part of the Force. If a viewer completely and unequivocally buys into Palpatine's spiel right along with Anakin - a result I'm convinced Lucas did not intend - then that viewer was somehow willing to casually throw out a central tenet and theme of the OT. And that would be a bad thing.

    None of those things are evil or even "vengeful". Yoda defends himself when he is about to be murdered in a plot designed to destroy the Jedi. There's nothing about that incident which has anything remotely to do with the definition of the word "revenge", because the clones hadn't done anything to him yet. If Yoda had been running around on Kashyyyk getting "revenge", it presumably would have been against the Separatist forces, specifically the gunship that almost pegged him. The Emperor is the central evil in the saga. Confronting him is not itself evil, outside the fallacious realm of abhorrent moral equivalency; in the mythological landscape of SW it cannot reasonably be understood as such. The Jedi Knights are pledged to defend the Republic, and that includes defending it against takeover by the Sith. Similarly, Obi-Wan didn't take on Anakin out of revenge. Just as he was playing defense throughout more or less the entire duel, Obi-Wan's mou kei was executed as a defensive move in response to Anakin's openly declared intent to kill him at that point ( an attempt which succeeded in the alternate ending shown in the video game ). Furthermore, it is only your assumption that Obi-Wan left Anakin burning as an intended "vengeful" act on his part, while his expressions during the scene seem to tell a different story.
    cwustudent likes this.
  15. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    So?

    Lucas modus operandi with the prequels consisted, and consists, in large part, of re-using and re-arranging various bits n pieces of what made it into the originals and what did not.

    I should have thought this was easy enough to understand, since Im acknowledging whats IN the original films (i.e., the actual title of Episode VI) AND what was once written down and planned to be put in.

    In my view, Star Wars becomes even deeper once you look at Lucas early drafts and ideas, and see how they form part of a larger tapestry than just the completed films on their own.

    This is not a way of rubbishing the films, but rather, attempting to understand them in a deeper way. For instance, in early drafts of the original movie, the Jedi were said to be the "bodyguards" of the Emperor, which is a role they inadvertently take on when leading the clones and doing his bidding in the PT. Lucas didnt drop the original idea; he reshaped it.

    In a way, that is Star Wars at its core: twisting things, augmenting them, bashing them into new shapes. Defamiliarizing the familiar.

    Yep.

    The OPPOSITE part.

    Where the Jedi are capable of taking revenge: becoming the Sith, unconsciously.

    I dont think fans have yet grappled with half the stuff Lucas put into these movies.

    Funny thing about these sentences. Theres something that ties them together. Oh, yes!

    YODA: Always two there are. No more, no less.

    After Order 66, the film is left, ostensibly, with two remaining Jedi, and two Sith.

    When Yoda confronts Sidious, he is the unconscious apprentice; in the Mustafar duel, Obi-Wan is Anakins true Sith master (note how the apprentice, basically, tries to usurp the master, and this paradigm becomes even more engaging).

    I dont deny anything. Jedi may not consciously resolve to undertake revenge, but they may do so unconsciously. That, to me, is an active meaning in the title to Episode III. Lucas has more or less spelled it out in interviews, by defining evil, when he talks about the storyline of the PT, as something people who think theyre doing good unconsciously embrace. Thats the Jedi.

    Actually, because Palpatine is "the bad guy" -- and "THE bad guy", at that -- a viewer is more inclined to dismiss what he says (everything he says) as misleading nonsense: moral and political casuistry, prevarication, sophistry and double-speak. But thats a denial of the truth. Yes, the character is hoping to condition Anakin and bring him to his cause, and in THAT sense, the character might be considered deceitful and slippery, but hes also being pretty frank with him (albeit, again, in a pretty slimy sort of way).

  16. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Which does not mean that any other imaginable rewriting and "rearranging", such as your own rewriting of the meaning of the title, has any validity.

    Which wasn't always the case ( in other words the Jedi have no Rule of Two ).

    Once again, the death of the vast majority of the Jedi, reducing their numbers to two ( on screen, although we know from EU that there were more survivors ) hardly counts as "revenge" on their part. It is the revenge of their enemy.

    In ROTS, Yoda is Qui-Gon's apprentice, not Palpatine's. He is in no way a Sith apprentice, just as Obi-Wan is in no way a Sith Master. You're once again forgetting ( or deliberately ignoring ) the essential difference between the Jedi and the Sith. Lucas does not share in this particular revision, though you may imagine otherwise.

    Nor is it true to say that the Jedi and Sith are "indistinguishable for all intents and purposes" as a result of blindly following Palpatine's lead. There is vast middle ground between "dismiss everything Palpatine says" and "Jedi and Sith are indistinguishable". Palpatine often manipulates by using the literal truth, but his attitude should not be confused with that of Lucas, and there's a lot contained in that "almost".

    They didn't make him feel anything.

    It doesn't need to be "rationalized" as a defensive action because it is a defensive action, outside the revisionist "bigger picture". You're rewriting the scene. If Yoda intended "revenge" for his earlier feelings, he presumably would have sought that revenge earlier, not right at the moment when he was about to be shot.

    You've missed the whole point of Star Wars, frankly, especially the OT, if you insist on equivalency between attack and defense, or between Jedi and Sith.

    Call it what you will, but you're calling fighting in self-defense "aggression" and "evil". This says that fighting either in self-defense or the defense of others is morally tantamount to the actual aggression and evil which prompts the defensive fighting in the first place. This is moral equivalency. Calling it "absolutist" is only accurate in the sense of saying "fighting is absolutely always wrong no matter what the reason" - but that un
  17. shanerjedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2010
    star 4
    I think putting the jedi in the same group as the Sith, no matter how elitist and out of touch the jedi are at the time of the PT, is a bit of a stretch IMHO. Nice thought though. I just don't agree with it.
  18. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    Actually, I think it does. Star Wars, as I see it, is an intensely moral set of films. And Lucas is endlessly commenting on the similarity of people and things. It goes right back to the original film; and, really, his earliest film-art.

    Do you even have any idea from where the series title -- "Star Wars" -- derives? It derives from a series of civil wars -- in-fighting, with astronomical (sky-based) timing -- fought on Earth.

    Lucas is satirizing and exploring the nature of all violence and conflict between individuals and groups and WITHIN individuals and groups.

    Even the prequels very existence, in terms of being made AFTER the originals, which theyre anticipating, are consonant with this exploration: first, Lucas presents a conflict thats already raging (the OT), then, he goes back and reverse-engineers it (the PT). His choices here are so radical that theyre still being hotly debated to this day.

    Everything is twisted round in the PT. In this trilogy, the Jedi can and do take revenge. Yes, it is against their "code", but thats that. We even see Mace Windu, venerable leader of the Jedi Order, go from arresting Palpatine, leader of the Galactic Republic, to attempting to murder him. What changes, exactly? Simple: Palpatine makes him angry. And Jedi arent meant to feel anger, but they do. "He couldnt assassinate anyone. Its not in his character."

    Yodas line is not just explaining an existing reality (as the character sees it), but pointing to an eventual reality (which he doesnt see).

    After Order 66, the film leaves itself with two Jedi and two Sith. A pair of actual, self-styled Sith, and a pair of unconscious ones. One (pair) + one (pair) = TWO.

    Well, NOW whos using additional material? In the film, Yoda never declares himself Qui-Gons apprentice. And even if he did, it wouldnt preclude my reading; if anything, it would support my reading. What the characters actually think or say they are is irrelevant. In Star Wars, actions, ultimately, supersede words. Words can clue us in, but ultimately, as Lucas says, these are "silent" movies.

    Palpatine says "similar in almos
  19. celera Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 13, 2002
    star 2
    This topic has actually been gone over a few times and seems to get revived every now and then. Which is OK since I never get tired of it. Check out this thread: http://boards.theforce.net/prequel_trilogy/b10669/31332734/r31358547/
  20. Darthbane2007 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2007
    star 4
    To be honest, The "Logic Flaws" that are apparent in the prequel trilogy in my opinion has to do with bad writing.

    TPM

    1. By TPM, Jedi are regarded as the end all to be all. If you encounter a Jedi, then you know there's trouble near. In regards to Nute Gunray, why didn't he send in the Droidekas first to dispose of Qui-Gon & Obi-Wan? Send in about 3-5, and with their rapid rate of fire and portable shield generators, they would make short work of the 2 Jedi..

    AOTC

    1. The whole Padme/Anakin love story. It's been done to death, but i'm lost as to how a guy like Anakin lusts after a girl for 10 years, with no meetings in between that time.

    2. Later on, Obi-Wan gets captured on geonosis. He manages to relay the message to both Anakin & Padme, as well as to the Jedi, a few senators, and Palpatine. He says that the TRADE FEDERATION & COMMERCE GUILDS have formed an alliance and is building a droid army. We even see a droideka come into view to go after Obi-Wan. Why then do Yoda & Mace still go ahead with the plan to send over 200 jedi to rescue Obi-Wan, Padme and Anakin, knowing full well that a DROID ARMY was ready to be sent to war? Were they hoping the seperatists would say " We Surrender!" and that would be the end? Mace even says in the beginning that there's not enough jedi to protect the republic. Why then send that many just to rescue 3 people?

    3. Padme of course gets the bright idea of going to Geonosis along with anakin to hopefully talk some sense and negoiate a treaty with the CIS. Seriously, How did she thing that would work? You're going to a planet that again, they knew full well that a DROID ARMY was there being produced. I'm pretty sure the CIS has made up their minds that surrending was not an option..

    4. At no point during the 10 years did the Kaminoans think " It's strange that we're building and equipping this army for a customer who has never contacted us. Maybe we should contact them?" Even though apparently they were getting paid during that time, it still makes no sense they didn't try and contact the republic..

    5. Kuat Drive Yards and the other companies that were responsible for equipping the Grand Army must have Bernie Madoff working for them. To fudge the numbers to hide the fact that they are building warships and arnament for an army and have no one at all be concerned is a miracle in and out of itself.

    6. And no one else in the senate thought it was strange that a few hours after palpatine said that he'll create a " Grand army of the Republic" that he suddenly has an army that is trained and armed to fight? To me, that would make it seem that palpatine wanted to fight all along...
    kubricklynch likes this.
  21. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    I agree with several of your points.

    I don't really consider it a "logic flaw" any more than 99 percent of film love stories are "logic flaws", including that of Han and Leia. But I will say that if it were me, I would have had at least a few letters or Holonet correspondences between the two of them during that ten-year time frame, even if it only happened in the EU and is not referred to in the film. Doing so would have actually added more meaning to Anakin's statement, "I haven't seen her in 10 years, Master," as many of us can relate to meeting in person someone we have corresponded with for awhile, and being a little nervous about it.

    Actually I think they were hoping that the Separatists would do that. I hate to use the word "arrogant," but the Jedi at that point were not exactly accustomed to being challenged. They were more accustomed to people reacting the way Gunray and Lott Dodd did in TPM. "The Jedi are coming? Oh ****." And the latter question is addressed extensively in Shatterpoint, with Dark!Depa Billaba telling Mace that they should have just bombed the entire arena with Anakin, Obi-Wan and Padme inside, and Mace at least wondering if she was correct.

    Padme was naive and idealistic at that point.

    I agree with all of your points here, but I don't know that it's "bad writing" as much as intentionally writing most of the characters as naive and well duped by Palpatine. We could probably study different periods in history and wonder how and why so many people didn't ask questions about what was happening. So were the characters naive and complacent, was Palpatine just that good, or both? I'd say both, and I think their being written that way was intentional. The other way to look at it is that Lucas wrote himself into a corner and all the other characters had to be idiots so that Palpatine could win. I prefer the former POV, but that's just me.
  22. DRush76 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2008
    star 4
    Why does Padme fall for Anakin? Portman was cast for what she was as a teenager (a smart, precocious young girl) so that she could bring that to the role. Aside from surviving several dangerous situations together, why does Padme give in and fall in love with the obviously ego-driven, whiney, mass-murderer? And he's creepy. He leers at her. I have so little opportunity to use the word "leers" in real time, but he really does!


    Oh dear Lord! Another one of those "Anakin is a creepy stalker" comments. All because he used dialogue that was popular in stories featuring the tradition of Courtly Love. And considering that Padme was not bothered by Anakin's slaughter of the Tusken Raiders, it's possible that her feelings about them were at the same level as Cliegg Lars.


    But I keep forgetting. To many, Padme is considered the "ideal STAR WARS female" or perfect. Someone like her isn't suppose to fall in love with Anakin. Good grief.


    Padme was naive and idealistic at that point.

    She was also arrogant.
  23. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    Statements such as "why does Padme fall in love with Anakin?" also generally reflect the poster's own view of Anakin. IOW posters who ask this question, also generally tend to call Anakin a "whiny stalker mass murder" or other random insult.

    It's understandable for one to ask why a person would fall in love with someone that one does not like at all, but as the entire issue is a matter of personal taste, there's not much point in discussing it either.

    People who sympathize with Anakin and/or see him as a complex character, will understand why Padme fell in love with him. People who see him as a one-dimensional character and/or a complete jerk, will not understand, no matter how many explanations are given. IMO it's best to leave it at that, there's no common ground to be had.
  24. CT-867-5309 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jan 5, 2011
    star 5
    That and the way he looks at her, like a predator. He doesn't fond over her all dreamy eyed like a teenager, he leers at her like prey to be snatched up and devoured. Even Padme said it made her uncomfortable, and Anakin says "she didn't like me watching her".

    I'd also like to point out just how extremely emotional he is around her. It's not just infatuation or even love, it's obsession. He's startlingly intense and on edge at all times. He breaks down in tears and says stuff like he's haunted by her kiss, "you are in my very soul, tormenting me". Really? You're haunted? How is that not scary? That is very disturbing considering he met her before puberty, spent like a week with her and then went 10 years without seeing her.

    His feelings and behavior concerning her do not come off at all healthy, normal or even socially acceptable in our world. If someone acted like Anakin in our society, it would be seen as harassment. It's exactly the kind of behavior you see from a stalker that ends up raping or murdering the target of their obsession.

    Then yeah, he slaughters the Tuskens. That should scream warning sirens, especially when you haven't seen the person in ten years. Why would Padme see the Tuskens as animals, she's never even seen one. I guess it's possible that she would fall in love with him anyway, seeing how popular imprisoned serial killers are with the ladies.

    I would say that being crept out was my natural reaction to Anakin's behavior, but I guess I'm just a hater with no reasoning behind my opinions.
    kubricklynch likes this.
  25. Darthbane2007 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2007
    star 4
    Yeah, I do tend to think most of the logic flaws within this thread is simply the result of bad writing and storytelling ( not that it takes away from the 3 movies being a success in my eyes).

    Anyway, here are some more from ROTS that I came up with:

    1. Why does Dooku act so surprised when Palpatine o
Moderators: Bazinga'd