PT Logic Flaws in the Prequel Trilogy

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

Moderators: Bazinga'd
  1. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6

    exactly!!

    which was my point, to me (I hate saying that otherwise you're acussed of stating your opinion as fact as if we are in some kind of court room) Padme only seems to care about things that involve her directly, her whole attitude of Shmi's kidnapping was a bit odd to me. It was kind of a "eh, what you gonna do?"

    but obviously my interpretations will be wrong yada yada.


    As a side, Nordom's posts are well worth the read, and the Forums really need his thought out posts, =D=
  2. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    You mean Shmi's slavery? I thought she was pretty horrified about the kidnapping. Not to mention worried for Anakin.

    Her leaving Shmi enslaved might be odd, and as I said, I've assumed that there were very real reasons that she couldn't do anything about it. Few question why the Jedi left Shmi in slavery. But that is an entirely different and even less relevant topic.

    But regardless, with the lack of EU source material and you guys ignoring the EU anyway, all we are left with are our own personal assumptions, and I have no interest in arguing about those being "right" or "wrong".

    As far as sympathy for Shmi vs the Tuskens, it just seems to me that advocating heavy condemnation of Anakin's actions equals advocating that the Tuskens be allowed to get away with torturing an innocent woman to death, given the lack of any justice system on Tatooine. That doesn't mean that what Anakin did was perfectly OK, given that he took out some members of the tribe who weren't responsible, but I think Padme understood what happened and felt Anakin's deep remorse, and as such, condemning him or abandoning him in his hour of need, would have been out of character.

    I could also see her encouraging him later to tell Obi-Wan the truth, and his refusing to listen. That's what happened in ROTS.

    Going to the Council to rat him out might have been what some of you would do, but that doesn't really fit with Padme's character either, she would expect Anakin to do it himself. And if the Jedi were going to offer Anakin any kind of psychological help, they would have done so when he came to Coruscant 10 years earlier.
  3. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6

    interesting choice of words,


    lets say you knew a friend who was harming him/herself, is it "ratting" to tell someone about it?

    or showing concern?


  4. Nordom Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 1, 2004
    star 4
    In TPM Padme was quite horrified about there still being slavery in the galaxy.
    She knew Shmi personally, Shmi opened her home to her when she really needed help and on top of that Shmi's son helped Padme to save her world. So why would Padme not try and help Shmi? From what the films tells us Padme never bothered to do anything about Shmi. If she tried and failed, she would have mentioned it. Also Padme is shown as someone who does not give up easily.
    Again EU is irrelevant as the movies have to be able to stand on their own. It important stuff happens in them, then the movies have not done their job.

    Also I DO question why the Jedi left Shmi to rot. They could surely see that Anakin was worried about his mother so why not put his mind at ease? Esp since he was such an important person, the ONLY person who could kill the sith. Also Shmi had helped some of the Jedi so it would be honorable form them to repay the favor. But the Jedi are often showed as cold and uncaring so their inaction makes some sense in that regard. But still wrong in my mind.

    You still do not understand that you can condem what someone has done WITHOUT supporting the other side. You can support someone and still say that what they did was wrong, that they need help etc. If a person has a drinking problem, is the only way to support that person to assure him that he does not have a drinking problem? My mother have worked with addicts and often they are not helped by telling them that they do not have a problem.
    Their friends and familiy can still support them while condeming what they do and urging that they get help.
    Padme could and should have told Anakin in AotC to get help and tell someone what had happened. That would have made for an intersting and dramtic discussion. Just letting the whole thing drop seems odd.

    In closing Padme could have reacted more strongly and STILL be on Anakins side, she does not have to run out or leave him. She can still support and help Anakin, but making excuses for his behavior is not really helping him.

    As Sistros said, if a person has a serious problem is it really "ratting" to tell them to get help or to tell someone else if they refuse? Also to Sistros, thank you for your kind words.

    Regards
    Nordom


  5. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    I don't disagree with you there, but I think she "let the whole thing drop" because they got a wee bit distracted afterwards with the war starting. And the Lars garage--immediately after the whole thing happened--was not the place for such a discussion. Using the alcoholism analogy you all are using, the middle of an alcoholic rage is not the time to encourage the alcoholic to get help.

    And Padme understanding why Anakin completely lost his **** is not "making excuses for his behavior." There is a difference between "excuses" and "reasons."

    Yes, it would be "ratting" to go to that friend's boss, knowing that the friend would probably be disciplined or fired. And Padme had no reason to assume that the Jedi would offer Anakin any sort of psychological help, which is what he needed. They had never offered him any for being separated from his mother, although that obviously affected him.

    When we are dealing with adults--and Anakin was 20 years old--the best option is to encourage the person to recognize that he or she needs help and seek it him- or herself. Any other option is likely to backfire. People who do not recognize themselves that they need help, are not likely to be helped.

    What Nordom described is "showing concern."
  6. Nordom Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 1, 2004
    star 4
    Using the alcoholic situation then the alcoholic rage would be Anakin killing the Tuskens. The garage is after that. It would more be like someone getting drunk and then driving and crashing, killing five people and then coming home and talking about it.

    Padme and Anakin had time to talk while flying to Geonosis. And she could have said more than she did in the garage and this did not have to be "Anankin you are horrible" and "I never want to see you again".

    To me it sounded like she made excuses for Anakins behaviour, all she said was "to be angry is to be human." The killings she did not even comment on. Not one word about it being wrong or that he needs help or that he should talk to Obi-Wan about it. The danger he was to himself and all around him she never mentions. The scene is quite interesting but that the subject is totally dropped after this seems odd to me. It was a big enough thing that it needed further development. Alternatively, Anakin could just mention the men and say nothing about the women and children and the movie does not show anything more than now. Then perhaps in RotS the thruth is revealed, that Anakin did more than just kill the men.

    Would you still think it to be "ratting" if that person was say an airline pilot or a doctor or someone who is responsible for many lives? Take drinking as an example and you know someone who is an airline pilot and you know he drinks too much and even getting drunk while flying. You have tried to talk some sense into this person but he refuses to listen. Which is worse, "ratting" and the person is fired or staying silent and he crashes a plane, killing thousands?

    How would Padme know what the Jedi would or would not do? Before AotC she never spoke to Anakin and would not know if they offered any help to him regarding his mother.
    She does know that the Jedi did not free his mother but since she could not be bothered to that either the Jedi are no worse than her. In RotS she did think Obi-Wan could help, why would she be so sure that Obi-Wan could do nothing for Anakin in AotC?

    Lastly, Padme never did encourage Anakin to seek help, which is what I have been saying.
    If she had we would not be having this discussion. If she had told Anakin to seek help and Anakin refused then talking to Obi-Wan would have been an option.

    Regards
    Nordom
  7. Valairy Scot Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    I've got to side with Nordom - in the real world.

    Anakin carried a weapon. He was a peacekeeper, a galactic cop of sorts and I darn well hope that in the real world someone would seek help once they recognized a problem and the person refused to get help.

    The problem is not that the Jedi wouldn't help, but this is not the real world and other events eclipsed that.

    The truth is not one of us know if Anakin was so deathly worried about his mother up until shortly before we viewers saw it onscreen. We don't know how worried he was, how unconcerned the Order was, why or how accurate the view was that Anakin/Padme would think the Order would not care...

    Obi-Wan's one line about dreams passing in time is not indicative of the past few years. Maybe Obi-Wan didn't care, didn't think, didn't know WHAT Anakin was dreaming about. It's fair to ask why Anakin didn't think he could TELL Obi-Wan, but that's all any of this is - speculation on our parts.

    Ultimately, these films are a mix of space fantasy and space opera where there are only the consequences that feed the plot and the rest are left out and ignored. WE look at them as real world parallels and see those unaddressed consequences and what-ifs as plot holes OR indicators of the moral caliber of the participants.

    Our discussions are as much a discussion of ourselves as the films.

    And now works calls..
  8. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6

    so when did Padme offer Psycological advice?

    All she said was "to be angry is to be human" (the same thing Palpatine said in ROTS "it was only natural, he cut off your arm, you wanted revenge" ) and the matter was dropped,

    the thing you seem to be forgetting is that he killed innocents (Children) and all she could muster was, 'well you were angry, it's natural' then the whole thing was dropped. I know your stance on there is no justice system etc, but as you see it as justice, others see it as revenge.


    And you're welcome Nordom, keep up the good work :D
  9. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    Speak for yourself, but it's a bit presumptive to assume that all "others" agree with you.

    I've seen quite a bit of shoulder-shrugging, "Oh well. Shmi was tortured to death but the Tuskens have to be allowed to get away with it since there is no justice on Tatooine" accompanied by absolute outrage over Anakin's actions. Seems to be a bit of a double standard. If what Anakin did wasn't justice, what would justice for Shmi have looked like, under the existing system on Tatooine? I'm not quite so eager to shrug off what happened to her. (And FWIW I'm not speaking only of your posts.)

    As far as the policeman/airline pilot comparison, Padme had no real reason to assume that Anakin was a constant threat to others. It was a unique situation; he would never find Shmi tortured to death again. And without Palpatine, whom Padme had no reason to suspect, Anakin's actions in the last half of ROTS (the ones that Padme didn't support) would not have happened either, so any "she should have seen it coming" argument doesn't work for me.
  10. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6
    others do agree with me..reading various threads arounds the boards nothing presumptive about it as you say, and I might add there are SW fans that don't post here that agree with me you know [face_peace]

    unless you mean to say that I didn't say "some others", in which case I apologise for my incorrect use of grammar.


    I've seen quite a bit of shoulder-shrugging, "Oh well. Shmi was tortured to death but the Tuskens have to be allowed to get away with it since there is no justice on Tatooine" accompanied by absolute outrage over Anakin's actions. Seems to be a bit of a double standard.

    no double standard about it, Anakin killed innocent people, something he himself admits. Even if he just did kill the men responsible, that might, I say MIGHT have been justice, it got to the revenge stage when he killed a whole tribe.


    And from Shmi's character the last thing she would have wanted was him to go nuts on a tribe, she wasn't an "avenge me" sort.

  11. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    There are "some others" who agree with me as well, but why do we even need to play that game? Why not simply discuss our own stances without keeping a bandwagon tally?

    Here is what we know from the films: the Tuskens kidnapped Shmi and spent a month brutally beating her to death. They also murdered 26 farmers who tried to rescue her, and cut off Cliegg Lars' leg. Anakin avenged her death, and was overzealous in doing so, and no, the overzealousness was not right.

    Yet when this topic comes up, all anyone ever talks about is Anakin--Anakin was evil, the Tuskens were innocent. And talk about making excuses for one's actions; I've heard every excuse in the book for the Tuskens. Trespassing/culture/didn't know better/insert another one here.

    How can you say there is no double standard? As I said earlier, given the level of moral outrage leveled against Anakin, I would have expected at least a modicum of it against Shmi's torturers and murderers. But I can hear the online crickets chirping every time I mention this.

    And no one has answered the question about how the Tuskens should have been brought to justice given the existing system on Tatooine--or if they should have been allowed to get away with murder, why.
  12. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6

    please read my post again, I've said to you many times in other threads that my posts sometimes don't come accross well or are written poorly, please quit with the accusatory tone. What I meant to say was either side is neither wrong or right, Brits say Tomartoes Americans say Tomaytoes, whatever floats your boat, I'm not playing any "games" actually I don't know why I'm explaining myself, there was nothing wrong with my quoted sentence.


    and this has gotten too far off topic, the disscussion is not about Tuskens to me, it's about Padme's illogical stance on the slave thing.


  13. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    The fact that you see Anakin's actions as revenge as opposed to justice, does not answer the question as to how the Tuskens should have been brought to justice. And that's what I was asking.

    As far as Padme not freeing Shmi from slavery, that could be called a "logic flaw" I suppose, or an unexplained gap in the 10 years between the films. My issue with that being brought up was the assumption that she must not have cared that Shmi was enslaved. Whatever her reasons were for not freeing Shmi, I don't think that was it.
  14. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6
    I suppose that if he had to see justice done, cut off a hand or leg of a few of the men, and leave it at that.


    My issue with that being brought up was the assumption that she must not have cared that Shmi was enslaved. Whatever her reasons were for not freeing Shmi, I don't think that was it.

    thats what is the illogical flaw. :p


  15. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    Do you really think Anakin was in a rational state of mind when he attacked, though? What I mean is, his mother dies and he looks completely lost, then, when we next get a look at his face, it's overwhelmed with bloodlust, rage, and anguish. Even Yoda remarks that Anakin is in "terrible pain." I don't think, when he left that tent, he was looking for justice -- my impression is that he was hurting and he wanted to make something else hurt, feel his pain. Many people have noted that they would have found the scene more sympathetic if Anakin had only killed the men and left the women and children alone.

    In some ways, though, I think that scenario is even worse because it would have meant that Anakin was rational and cold-blooded enough to judge who he wanted to kill and leave the rest unharmed. I don't think he was -- it struck me as a very heat of the moment attack.

    As for Padme and Shmi, it isn't necessarily a flaw in logic. For one, Padme had just retaken her home world where people were dying due to the oppression of the Trade Federation. Her top priority, as leader, would have been to make sure everyone was okay which would have taken quite a while following a planetary invasion. Then, there's the justice system to deal with and it's mentioned in AOTC that Nute Gunray was tried four times by the Supreme Court. Padme would have doubtlessly been a participant at these proceedings given her status as the head of state and a frontline witness.

    Also, we don't know when exactly Shmi married Cliegg Lars. If Padme sent a committee or inquiry to Tatooine, they may have found Watto uncooperative (given that he probably doesn't have very good feelings about Naboo given what happened in TPM -- the loss of Anakin would always be associated with them). Or, if Shmi said she was happy and didn't want to leave, it's likely that Padme may just have been forced to let the matter drop.

    Certainly, it could have been addressed, but it's not necessary. In my experience with media, even points that seem to be blatant contradictions can have logical explanations if you're willing to be open to possibilities.
  16. Nordom Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 1, 2004
    star 4
    You keep making this into an either/or situation. That if you condem Anakin you support the right of the Tuskens to kill and torture. Or if if you condem the Tuskens then Anakin did nothing wrong at all.
    It is not that simple. You can condem one side WITHOUT supporting the other. I have never argued that the Tuskens did nothing wrong or that what they did was not cruel, terrible or barbaric. But Anakin going kill crazy and killing everyone that came in his path, regardless wheter they had anything to do with it nor not is still wrong. As I said, two wrongs do not make a right. BOTH the Tuskens and Anakin did terrible things.

    But I have come across people that have argued that what Anakin did was not wrong in any way at all. That the entire Tusken race was evil, cruel and should be exterminated. So his killings was a good thing and even the children deserved to be killed because they were members of an evil, barbaric race and they would inevitably grow up to be monsters that killed innocent women.

    The legal system in many countries is ruled in part by the notion "Better ten criminals go free than one innocent man go to jail." You can debate this and I doubt everyone will ever see eye to eye on this.
    It is a very emotional subject, esp with terrible crimes. The crime is so great that we DEMAND that someone be punished for it. But should that demand lead us to punish someone who had nothing to do with it? Is this better or have we simply added more bodies to the pile?

    What would be a fitting punishment for the Tuskens? I do not know, all I know is what Anakin did was not it.

    First you made a general statement that going to someones boss and telling them that what that person has been doing is "ratting". I asked what about situations where that person is responsible for many lives? Or for that matter, what if the person has a serious death wish? That he would want to kill or hurt himself. Is it still "ratting" to tell someone about it?

    About Anakin not being a danger, I disagree. He suffered a terrible loss and reacted by killing all those around him. Based simply on that if Anakin were put in a similar situation, Obi-Wan getting killed or herself getting killed, Anakin could go kill-crazy again. Anakin lost control and could not regain it untill there was noone left to kill. Or he did regain control but kept killing anyway.
    Either way, Anakin is a danger to himself and those around him. And Padme should have seen this.


    That depends on how it plays out. Say that Anakin goes on the attack and kills the guards that attack him, the women and children run away or h
  17. Valairy Scot Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    =D= You've said that so much better than I could hope to. I KNOW Anakinfan is a reasonable woman, but Anakinfan, you slipped into the "all or nothing" although I don't think you really meant it to come across that way.

    Yes, I'm sure some said exactly what you say, but most of are appalled by the behavior on both sides. I don't excuse the Tuskens and I don't excuse Anakin. Do I UNDERSTAND Anakin - yes! But understanding, even sympathy does not make what he did right, it makes it understandable.


    That sounds like how that scene should have gone - and it would have generated a lot more sympathy for Anakin's understandable anger. Yes, he showed a certain remorse later (garage) but how meaninful if it had happened while the blood was still fresh on his hands.
  18. shanerjedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 17, 2010
    star 4
    Good discussion here. Let's keep it on track. Remember to discuss the films, not fans.

    So keep it going.
  19. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    That's a good idea, Nordom. I think, however, that the reason Lucas chose not to implement such a scenario comes down to movie logistics. This is Anakin's first tread into the dark side, so he has to kill in response to his mother's death to advance the plot. He also must, however, take his mother's body back to the Lars' moisture farm in order to bury her and say goodbye (and from a character standpoint, there's no way Anakin would leave his mother's body with those who tortured her to death). Unfortunately, with your scenario, if Anakin only kills the guards, he still has to make it back to the moisture farm with his mother's body. If he begins an attack, it's likely that they won't just let him go back into the tent, wrap his mother up and leave. And we saw, in ROTS, that Anakin can't Force sprint while carrying someone else. Killing only several people might seem more reasonable to you, but I doubt that the others are going to just let him walk out of there. Remember that they killed the 26 farmers that went after Shmi as well.

    I don't disagree with you that what Anakin did was wrong. I think our disagreement has always been that you see what Anakin did as abnormal while I do not. I think almost any person, given the stimulus Anakin had and the power disparity between him and the Tuskens would fly into bloodlust as a result. Few things are worse than watching a loved one be tortured to death and I'm not surprised that he snapped. Really, I think it is this point that is at the heart of the debate.

    Well, Naboo's infrastructure might not have been terribly damaged, but it's people might have. After all, Nute Gunray tells Sio Bibble, in a private conversation:

    "Your Queen is lost, your people are starving..."

    There's no attempts to manipulate Padme here, so I really do think the people were suffering. Like ANH's Alderaan, however, the movie doesn't make i
  20. DRush76 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2008
    star 4
    My issue with that being brought up was the assumption that she must not have cared that Shmi was enslaved. Whatever her reasons were for not freeing Shmi, I don't think that was it.


    How would she have been able to do it within such a short space of time? Cliegg Lars was able to do so after buying Shmi from Watto. How would a queen of Naboo and later, a senator, have been able to explain her actions without raising a political storm?
  21. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    That actually pretty much sums up my stance: what Anakin did was not OK per se, especially regarding the women and children, but it was certainly understandable given the circumstances.

    Unfortunately I've seen far too much argument that it wasn't understandable; I've seen far too much of the counter-position of Nordom's example that all the Tuskens deserved to die. I've seen quite a bit of argument that there was nothing wrong with what the Tuskens did or it was somehow more understandable/excusable than what Anakin did. To be fair, I've only seen that argument once in this thread, in the ranting post that started this whole discussion.

    I should add that my opinion on the whole subject is influenced by the fact that I am absolutely horrified at the brutal manner in which Shmi was killed. Every time I try to put myself in Anakin's shoes--imagining him finding his mother dying and knowing that she had been tied to that rack, starved, and brutally beaten for 30-35 days--I have a very hard time judging him for what he did after she died in his arms.

    If I try to put myself in the Tuskens' shoes, however, I can't do it. The concept of kidnapping someone and slowly and deliberately torturing him or her, is not something I can fathom, nor do I really want to try.

    For that reason I see the Tuskens' crimes as worse. The sheer numbers argument doesn't work too well with me either as the Tuskens also murdered the farmers who tried to rescue Shmi.

    So the summation here, and on the thread topic: Padme's reaction was hardly a "logic flaw." She probably also found Anakin's actions wrong (based on the horrified look on her face) but given the circumstances, she found it understandable.

    The Han and Leia discussion in Tatooine Ghost on this subject is fantastic. Leia sees the slaughter through the Force after coming across the location of the camp. Han says, "He was a kid with a dead mother I might have done the same thing." Leia says, "That doesn't make it right." Han's response? "And it doesn't make me a Sith monster either. What he did wasn't evil, it was human."

    I think that's how Padme saw it. Should she have encouraged him to seek help later, especially given the guilt that he carried with him from that moment until he became Darth Vader? Yes. But there is also the fact that just because it wasn't discussed again in the movie, doesn't mean that the subject was dropped completely, that Padme never mentioned it again. There are a lot of missing moments in these films, some of them pretty damn important. (Proposal scene anyone? Even the EU hasn't touched that one.)

    And if for argument's sake it were dropped, I could understand why Padme wouldn't necessarily feel the need to bring it up again, if nothing else, I could see her assuming (probably correctly) that Anakin wouldn't want to talk about it.

    We could argue until the banthas come home about whether Padme's decisions (or possible decisions) were "wrong," but they weren't "logic flaws."
  22. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6

    have to differ there, look at the deleted scene on AOTC where's she's talking about saving aliens on another planet who couldn't adapt. It was in her nature to care about others.


    As Normod said, Shmi took them into her home, offered them food and shelter, and her son indirectly saved her planet.

    aabout the Tusken slaughter I've not met anybody say what the Tuskens did was justifiable,

    but just because I don't agree with him butchering Children doesn't mean that I agree with the tuskens.


    and just as you can understand why he did what he did because of shmi's torture, I CAN'T understand the slaughter of children, no matter how angry he is, same thing.
  23. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    I wish I could say that I hadn't.

    It was, but I don't see a connection between the aliens she worked with on the Refugee Relief Movement and the Tuskens who tortured her mother-in-law to death. I just don't. Hence why I don't see a logic flaw.
  24. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6
    no, the keeping her a slave, not offering money, not sending anyone to Tatooine , etc

    10 years a long time not to do anything.


  25. JimRaynor55 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2005
    star 3
    Padme, the Queen of Naboo, had her own responsibilities to take care of. Her world was attacked, and many of its people had been killed or placed in internment camps. She had to seek justice against the Trade Federation, and manage her people's new relations with the Gungans. According to AOTC, over that time period Padme also got an education, and became a Republic Senator. I'm not surprised that she didn't immediately free Shmi, a legally owned slave on a foreign world. Being a slave is terrible, but Shmi's situation wasn't immediately life threatening. Why would Padme place Shmi over the millions and millions of dead, injured, or wronged Naboo people in her local area? I can believe that Shmi was simply forgotten.

    BTW, buying off a slave isn't exactly kosher. Even if you do that with good intentions of freeing them, that's still financing human trafficking. You would get arrested for that in real life. And there would be a scandal if Padme used Naboo government funds to do that.

    It sucks, but when large scale tragedies happen, people do tend to be forgotten in real life. For example, do you think the US military or the Senators who went to Libya made sure that every Libyan rebel who helped or met with them made out alright?
Moderators: Bazinga'd