PT Plot Holes and Inconsistencies in the Prequel Trilogy

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,

 

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?

 

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

 

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

 

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..

 

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

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Good discussion here. Let's keep it on track. Remember to discuss the films, not fans.

So keep it going.

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

no, the keeping her a slave, not offering money, not sending anyone to Tatooine , etc

10 years a long time not to do anything.

 

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?