Plot holes? The final chapter.

Patrick

I watched the movie a few days ago...so it is fresh in my mind. And I am gonna accuse you of something that I never thought I would accuse a fellow Star Wars Fan: You are looking too deep into the movie.

Palpatines only motivation for he invasion was the sympathy vote...Don't forget he still has to play the role of Sidious The Conqueror to the TF, even if he had gotten his original goal of getting elected. And he wasn't elected before the Battle of Naboo started. What better sympathy vote can you get then when your queen is fighting and perhaps dying to free your people?

The opening crawl mentions taxation dispute-it wouldn't be an exactly great leap of logic to say that an organization called the Trade Federation would want to lift taxes. Or maybee they wanted them increased...but either way, the Blockade was a protest about the Taxation.

The Trade Federation wasn't trying to do anything behind anyones back, per se. When the Jedi Amassadors arrived, TF was actually ready to give up. In fact, when Sidious Orders the Landing, The TF asked "Is it Legal?" And Sidious Respons "I will MAKE it leagal"

Why ask that question if you are trying to "pull" something? The appearence of the Jedi forces the time table up. And since Palpatine knew that the Ambasadors were coming(if not requested by him) SIdious knew that they were coming...and forced the TF to invade, though they themselves question the legality of it.

I am siding with Patrick on this one, mostly since I don't believe the "sympathy vote" card is as powerful as most people make it up to be.

Where do the sympathy votes come from? Why would a invasion generate sympathy votes from an assembly generally regarded as being only out for themselves? Especially when the very basis for the sympathy is in dispute?

Why would the delegates dismiss Amidala's accusations of an invasion, burying it in procedure, while immediately afterwards finding it in their hearts to pity poor Naboo who suffers an invasion?

I don't believe that the Senate would really come to their senses if Palpatine waved a signed "legal but unjust" treaty. The Senate of the PT is in love with itself and its procedures, no way the argument "but but but... it is NOT FAIR" would be considered to carry any weight.

One more thing and I mentioned this before: I believe that the treaty is the kind that all member worlds of the TF has signed. They waive their right to senate-representation in return for trade benefits. If it had been signed, Palpatine would be out of a job, and no longer have the right to speak in the Senate. In fact, this might even be a basis for the TF's desire for a treaty, removing Palpatine from office, while at the same time sending the message to Coruscant that the TF means business and will not accept to be split apart.

I believe that the TF wanted Naboo, but they had to move fast so that no one could actually prove that the signing had been illegal. That is why all communication was shut down. (Note that it was shut down after the blockade card had failed, and before the invasion card had been played).

Look at any coup d'etat - If you can control the information, you can dictate what happend.

Note: About the TF splitting - The novel "Cloak of Deception" mentions that the Tax deal is as much about taxing as it is forcing the TF member worlds back into normal Republic participation.

A connection trace was made by the last known by finding a star system along the last known trajectory of the fleeing ship. It's not hard to believe a siths ship has better tracking abilities than a Trade Federation Ship. and as far as Naboo being far from Tattione, why would Watto have lots of Nubien parts if it wasn't a close system?

A connection trace was made by the last known by finding a star system along the last known trajectory of the fleeing ship. It's not hard to believe a siths ship has better tracking abilities than a Trade Federation Ship. and as far as Naboo being far from Tattione, why would Watto have lots of Nubien parts if it wasn't a close system? It wasn't contolled by the republic because the huts were in control the (the Mob)

I made what I think was a really good point a couple of pages back, but it virtually got ignored. So I bring it up again for discussion:



<<<<>>>>
Me: Look, it's like this. Say you lent me a hundred dollars. Then, I offered to pay you back. You said, "it's not important," but I insist that I pay you the money, anyway. Then, I give 50 of the 100 dollars, and I tell you I am going to give you the rest the next day. But when that time comes, I decided, "No, I'm not giving you the money. I don't owe you anything. You said it wasn't necessary." There would be something wrong with that situation, no? <<<

OrlandoT: Wrong analogy. If I lent you 100 bucks I'd expect you to pay me back. This is why I'd call it a Loan. Now, if I give you a 100 bucks out of a charitable nature and you insists on paying me back how are you going to do it if I insist on not taking it? I never ask you for any money at all. In fact, I insist on not taking it. Y There was no agreement between Qui-Gon and Jar-Jar that the Gungan would have to serve him if he saved his life. But you know, you don't want to hear this. You?re so intent on disliking TPM, that you invent a problem that doesn't exist. >>

Me: I don't invent problems. I just don't take the time to craft explanations to solve weaknesses in the film's narrative.

Are you saying that Jar-Jar never owed Qui-Gon a life debt because he said no? I thought the life debt was the whole damn reason we had to deal with him throughout the whole movie. Once they get off the Bongo, there's no reason for Jar-Jar to be in to movie, if there is no life debt. I can accept that Qui-Gon only brought up the life debt with Boss Nass to save Jar-Jar from punishment ( so much for me inventing problems that don't exist). And he couldn't get off the Bongo while it was underwater. But once they reached Theed, why on Earth didn't Jar-Jar just thank the Jedi and run back to the woods to continue eating dirt and mud, like he was before, if there was no life-debt Jar-Jar was entitled to give Qui-Gon, like you say. I can't think of any other reason than "the will of the script" which is a problem that seems to plague much of TPM. I'm sure you can find something, though.

Even worse, why does Jar-Jar accompany the Jedi into Tattooine, if he had no life debt?. Not like he really does anything in that portion of the movie except act stupid and petty, anyway. The only reason I can think of is because it's really "funny". >>

Bjorn

If recent and past history has proven-sympathy and myrtardom has affected votes in the United States

Lyndon Johnson got many of social porgrams through the congress because of the the assasination of Kennedy.

W.Bush got a lot of questionable legislation passed because of 9/11.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, a tearful testimony from a Kuwattian girl about the atrocities that Iraq was perpetrating helped moved congress to support the Presidents G. Bush Gulf War policy. It was later discovered that the girl was the daughter of the ambassador, not in Kuwait at the time of the Invasion. In fact, some of the crimes that she accused Iraq of doing, mainly "stealing incubators and killing newborns" didn't happened.

So sympathy does work in determining legislation. And the senat knows a good political opportunity when they see one. The senate got rid of a tainted chancellor and replaced them with a guy who they believe is beholding to them. "Remember I voted for you and Naboo when you guys were in trouble."

>>>Are you saying that Jar-Jar never owed Qui-Gon a life debt because he said no? I thought the life debt was the whole damn reason we had to deal with him throughout the whole movie.<<<<


No. They needed Jar-Jar to get him to the gungan city so they could get to theed. They took him with him trough the core to save his life.

>>> Once they get off the Bongo, there's no reason for Jar-Jar to be in to movie, if there is no life debt. I can accept that Qui-Gon only brought up the life debt with Boss Nass to save Jar-Jar from punishment ( so much for me inventing problems that don't exist). And he couldn't get off the Bongo while it was underwater. But once they reached Theed, why on Earth didn't Jar-Jar just thank the Jedi and run back to the woods to continue eating dirt and mud, like he was before, if there was no life-debt Jar-Jar was entitled to give Qui-Gon, like you say. I can't think of any other reason than "the will of the script" which is a problem that seems to plague much of TPM. I'm sure you can find something, though.<<<<<


You try to hard man to find something to question yet you don't bother to see if the film answer it. Common sense would tell you that it would be stupid to leave someone in a TF occupied city. What would you have them do? Take time to take Jar-Jar back where they got him from?

>>>Even worse, why does Jar-Jar accompany the Jedi into Tattooine, if he had no life debt?. Not like he really does anything in that portion of the movie except act stupid and petty, anyway. The only reason I can think of is because it's really "funny".<<<

Again, use some common sense here. Qui-Gon obviously did. Why leave a Gungan in the ship where he can cause trouble. He was Qui-Gon's responsibility, remember?

<<>>>Are you saying that Jar-Jar never owed Qui-Gon a life debt because he said no? I thought the life debt was the whole damn reason we had to deal with him throughout the whole movie.<<<<


No. They needed Jar-Jar to get him to the gungan city so they could get to theed. They took him with him trough the core to save his life. >>

See below. I accept that much (although I think they could have actually gotten there faster if they had skipped the Gungan city, but that's something else entirely.).

>>> Once they get off the Bongo, there's no reason for Jar-Jar to be in to movie, if there is no life debt. I can accept that Qui-Gon only brought up the life debt with Boss Nass to save Jar-Jar from punishment ( so much for me inventing problems that don't exist). And he couldn't get off the Bongo while it was underwater. But once they reached Theed, why on Earth didn't Jar-Jar just thank the Jedi and run back to the woods to continue eating dirt and mud, like he was before, if there was no life-debt Jar-Jar was entitled to give Qui-Gon, like you say. I can't think of any other reason than "the will of the script" which is a problem that seems to plague much of TPM. I'm sure you can find something, though.<<<<<


You try to hard man to find something to question yet you don't bother to see if the film answer it. Common sense would tell you that it would be stupid to leave someone in a TF occupied city. What would you have them do? Take time to take Jar-Jar back where they got him from? >>

Uh, how did the Jedi know Theed was occupied? From their vantage point when they surfaced, no battle droids were present. For all they know at this point, they have beaten the invasion army. Or maybe all they could have done was surfaced at a point not as far down the river, where they were not yet in the city, let Jar-Jar out so he can run back to the woods to continue eating dirt with all the other animals, and then continue on theri way.

>>>Even worse, why does Jar-Jar accompany the Jedi into Tattooine, if he had no life debt?. Not like he really does anything in that portion of the movie except act stupid and petty, anyway. The only reason I can think of is because it's really "funny".<<<

Again, use some common sense here. Qui-Gon obviously did. Why leave a Gungan in the ship where he can cause trouble.[i/]

I dunno. Maybe the same reason that he brought him with on an incredibly crucial phase of a mission in which the fate of a whole planet hangs in the balance? Where he could have caused a lot of trouble that might have caused the whole thing of getting parts for the hyperdrive to go to hell? Like maybe getting his slimy Gungan paws all over the newly acquired hyperdrive and causing a crucial component to break off? (you know the way how he has to get his paws all over everything mechanical he sees) Or maybe landing in jail or in the bottom of the Sarlaac pit for stealing food? (for all Qui-Gon knows, that creature who Jar-Jar stole the food from could have been a close ally/business associate of the Hutts. Or maybe they recieve a portion of the profits gained from all local shopkeepers for their own personal gain? That sounds just like the kind of sneaky thing the Hutts would do.)


He was Qui-Gon's responsibility, remember?
Why was he only Qui-Gon's responsiblity? Since Obi-Wan HAD to be stuck back at the ship, like you insist, couldn't Obi-Wan merely have watched over him at the ship during that time? I'm sure he can afford to pay more attention to him then Qui-Gon ultimately could. Not like he had much else to do.

Or is it Gungan culture that if someone saves your life, that person has to baby you and feed you and fan your back and change your diapers?

"So, the only real "complaint" is the lack of exposition on the TF's motivation."

As I've said before, overall I find the political storyline to be one of TPM's few strong suits. Overall, that is... I still find the TF to be a weak adversary because there's not a clear sense of what their motivation is.

"We know that they made a deal with Palpatine. We know that their attack on Naboo helped Palpy rise to power. We don't know how it benefited the TF to invade Naboo. I can live with that. Is there any reason that TPM should have devoted any time to the motivations of Palpy's pawns? Other than for trivial reasons, what difference would it have done to know the TF's deal with Palpatine?"

For the simple reason that, for all intents and purposes, they are the villains in this movie. Yes, I realize they're being played by the REAL villain, but come on... these are the people the heroes are fighting against. They are the ones who allegedly pose a clear and present danger to the inhabitants of Naboo. They are not merely just Palpatine's pawns (although they certainly are that as well). The notion that we don't need to be clued in to what they want is strange to me. IMHO it's the difference between an effective villain and... well, the Neimoidians.

"And I am gonna accuse you of something that I never thought I would accuse a fellow Star Wars Fan: You are looking too deep into the movie."

Actually, I'm not. I'm just applying a bit of simple logic to a basic dramatic concept... what do the bad guys want? And the dialogue in the movie is indicating to me that what they want is something other than simply the lifting of a tax.

Now, there's the possibility that this aspect of the political thread was simply not that well written by ol' George. This I could believe.

But while Nute DOES ask if an invasion is "legal" in his first communication of the film with Palp/Sid, suggesting that the invasion is merely an escalation of the trade boyott, the references to the invasion for the rest of the film make it sound very much like something else is at stake. Again, even Qui Gon remarks that in the context of the trade boycott, the invasion makes no sense.

(And Gomer, I realize that you believe obscuring/flat-out failing to point out the motivations of the main adversary for the entirity of a movie is a work of subtle genius, but really it's just bad storytelling.)

Only if thier motivations are never made clear.

>>>For the simple reason that, for all intents and purposes, they are the villains in this movie. Yes, I realize they're being played by the REAL villain, but come on... these are the people the heroes are fighting against. They are the ones who allegedly pose a clear and present danger to the inhabitants of Naboo. They are not merely just Palpatine's pawns (although they certainly are that as well). The notion that we don't need to be clued in to what they want is strange to me. IMHO it's the difference between an effective villain and... well, the Neimoidians.<<<<

I hate to use this phrase, I really do. They weren't supposed to be effective villains. They were pushovers. This is probably a sore point with most, but let's face it, they aren't your classic villains. They weren't much of a threat. Heck, the queen and a few security volunteers stopped them. They are ineffective as villains yet real effective as pawns.

If this was a stand alone story, it wouldn't work. This is why I stand by my belief that TPM is best enjoyed with prior knowledge of the OT.

Well, there you go... purposely creating a weak villain for something like a Star Wars movie is just asinine and a waste of time. I don't care if the word "phantom" is in the title or not... if a villain does not cause the audience to worry about the heroes, then what's the point? It's like a cheeseburger without any meat on it... great lettuce, cheese and condiments, but as a burger it's missing a vital ingredient. "But the CHEESE is really good. They'll give you a beef patty NEXT time you order a burger from them."

I agree. I'm sick of people justifying the fact that all the important stuff and all the drama in the movie is pushed to the background due to the fact that the movie has "phantom" in the title.

I am sick of hearing about how you guys won't accept it.

It's not a question of "accepting it". It's a question of whether you're gonna get served a burger with no meat patty on it and a.) rave about how it's the best, tastiest burger you've ever et, or 2.) try to send the thing back.

I guess the idea I've got a problem with is that as long as one sticks the word "phantom" in the title of one's story, one can automatically get away with all manner of half-assed plotting and character motivation.

"It's not meant to be a stand-alone movie" doesn't cut it either. ESB was a movie which was completely reliant on the films which preceded and followed it, but basic things like character motivation were pretty damned clear. Yes... there were things which remained a mystery until ROTJ, but they were big things like "IS Vader actually Luke's father?", etc. Questions like "What DO the Neimoidians really want from Naboo?" are not legitimate cliffhanger mysteries, because they are specifically connected to the plot of one movie and the character of the apparent villains in that movie depends on it.

But again, I see all manner of bad writing in TPM being dismissed as stuff that we're supposedly going to find out in the next two movies, but the problem is that they're not big cliffhanger issues... they're story/plot issues related specifically to TPM which needed to be dealt with within TPM itself. TPM was not better served by Lucas being obtuse about basic story elements... "I am your father!", it's not.

It's too bad you feel that way.

Yeah, I'm funny like that. I tend to do goofy-ass things like expecting competent scriptwriting in movies... it's madness, I tell ya!

You may not like what he is doing, but it is more competent than most of the crap that comes out of Hollywood these days.

So Go-Mer's argument about TPM's weak plot revolves around the fact that it's not TOO horrible compared to the OTHER Hollywood crap these days?!

That's like saying; since there's so much destruction done by terrorists in the world, so the United States army should nuke France! Really logical arguement.

Yes 98% of big-budget Hollywood films produced in the last ten years are absouletly garbage in the writing dept. (In my opinion; The Matrix, Titanic, Men In Black, Independence Day, Godzilla, Twister, Volcano, etc.) That doesn't mean Lucas should be equally lazy as these films when it comes to writing.

I am arguing that it actually has a very strong plot, and that it isn't "bad" or "lazy" just because some things won't be revealed until the next two films.

What you are missing here is that TPM is actually a great entry into the SW saga, and at the very least as good as the classic trilogy.

Personally, thats all I could hope for.

I see your point. I respectfully disagree 100%, though.

I feel it was a slopply written movie, and that MOST of these plot hole will never even be answered in AOTC or Ep. III. In my opinion, TPM is a dreadfully boring, poorly written introduction to one of the most exciting film series in history.

Qui-Gon taking Anakin with him to Naboo is not a plot hole. I left that unchanged in my rewrite, because there is no other way to get Anakin involved in the final battle.

Oh, but there is ...

...by re-writing the entire SCRIPT, and not basing it on the already incredibly bad script "Episode I: The Phantom Menace".



...and by God, why didn't they just call it STAR WARS: THE PHANTOM MENACE??!!?


I hate the "Episode" tags, and they hate me.

Great, another SW fan who hates everything.