Full Series The Clone Wars: Episode 217: Bounty Hunters Discussion Thread (Spoilers Allowed)

Why? This is The Clone Wars, which isn't EU.

BAM. ANOTHER CAN OPEN!!!

But seriously, if your complaint is that by calling these folks bounty hunters the writers aren't being consistent with the EU, well that's a criticism that we've seen many times before and will probably see many times in the future. It's not new. Just a new instance of a recurring phenomenon.

 

Of course.
Also, TCW vaguely follows the EU, anyway. A lot of retcons will appear.

 

agreed Wedge. Its all pointless in the end. I was just trying to get straight.
One thing though. My whole point is though you claim "bounty" applies specifically to killing or capturing someone. the WHOLE point is IT DOESNT!!! Find me somewhere that backs up this is how it can be specifically applied!

 

Ok cool It is pretty pointless. But the way you use the term is limiting it to a narrow and specific useage. Its really a fact! But at the end of the day, it doesnt matter at all Not starting a fight, just getting it right.
Peace.

 

Read the EU, please. Or better yet, ESB shows it, too.

 

Both the EU and ESB show and example of a TYPE of Bounty Hunting. But are you suggesting either can RE-INVENT a term and limit it ONLY to this type of useage forever more. CLEARLY NOT!
Its like suggesting that the term "shopping" can ONLY be used for grocery shopping. There are many types.

 

I'm going to have to say that you originally thought that Sugi's band acting as bodyguards was bounty hunting. That's completely false. It seems you're confusing the meaning of what makes a bounty hunter.

In other words, let's say that I'm going to get paid after standing in a corner for a minute. Is that bounty hunting? Absolutely not. Getting paid by doing something other than hunting a target, isn't bounty hunting.

 

Excellent point. In the real world, bounty hunters do lots of things. ESB and EU show only one type. So why must TCW limit its portrayal of bounty hunting to the particular type shown by ESB and the EU?

Moreover, why does the absence of a broader use of the term "bounty hunting" in ESB and the EU imply that in ESB and the EU other things could be called bounty hunting?

1) Why can't TCW use more meanings of a term than the EU does?
2) Why even assume that in the world of the EU only the one meaning is true?

 

No no. It is YOU who has it wrong. Have a look at a definition! Its a black and white fact. You cant argue with a well established definition. Its the Oxford Dictionary, its not an interpretation.
You can take a term and use it however you like (which you are here). But if you choose to use a term in a limited and narrow way, you should be aware that other broader applications of that term are also true. Its just a language, its the way it is! Do you see?

 

Hey Samurai aren't supposed to protect farmers for pay either! But that's what they're doing in The Seven Samurai They're supposed to serve a feudal lord!

 

Agreed.

GGrievous, sorry man, but you just ARE wrong on this.

 

Here's the problem.

'Bounty' has a meaning broader than just "money to capture or kill someone."

But when it is put together with another word--"hunter"--you get a new term, "bounty hunter," which is a technical term that according to the dictionaries I see does have a specific limited meaning.

"Bounty hunter" refers to one who seeks people or animals for the reward.

So taking the two words separately, it is correct to say they were 'hunting bounty' in this episode. But when put together, it does not appear to be correct to say they were doing what distinctively makes a bounty hunter a "bounty hunter."

That doesn't mean they're not bounty hunters though. We'd need more info to make that determination. And we don't have it. We just have what the chief farmer says.

 

Why would an animal have a bounty on its head? I think you guys aren't familiar with the term bounty hunter. That's all I'm going to say.

 

Exactly! It is unfair for us to deny the indentification given to them both by the writers and by characters within the show simply because they are not, in the course of the plot, technically doing what fits the definition of that identification.

 

No one cares about the Jedi not being able to do their job as well as they used to?

 

Actually, number 2 is what I've been saying for quite some time.

 

Yeah but additionally.
Sugis group totally are performing this role;

2. One who pursues a criminal or fugitive for whom a reward is offered.

Sure Hondo instigates it all. But then Sugi is "persuing" him while defending that farm. This definition applies to the letter.

SO even in this specific instance they are FULLY performing the role of a "Bounty Hunter". Sure we are bogged down in semantics and its not really a big deal, but again I say, lets have it right!

 

Right, going after a reward. It's normally associated with going after a person who is wanted by the law, but for whatever reason is just out of reach, but could also be going after an object or something to gain the reward or bounty offered.

Still, protecting farmers for money is NOT bounty hunting... but it doesn't mean Sugi's band aren't bounty hunters. I think this episode did a diservice calling itself "bounty hunters" and implying there would be bounty hunters and bounty hunting in it.

It's like calling the show The Clone Wars and not being about the Clone Wars at all.

 

Guys! You cannot define "bounty hunter" by breaking it up into the two words that form the term. Sure, "bounty" is a reward, a payment, and "hunter" is one who searches for or seeks something. So does that mean that a garbage collector who looks for pennies in other people's trash bins is a Bounty Hunter?! Heck no. You have to consider the term as a whole and its meaning. "Bounty Hunter" is by the dictionary definition "One who pursues a criminal or fugitive for whom a reward is offered."

If you go around dissecting terms like this you will come to the brilliant conclusion that a snubfighter is someone who fights people by offending them.

 

They weren't bounty hunting.

 

I'm aware of that. And you did not seem to notice that I was agreeing with you in that "bounty" is used in a limited sense in the term "bounty hunter."

Nevertheless, my statement that "bounty hunter" can refer to those who seek animals for the reward is accuare. Thus I am familiar with the term "bounty hunter." Moreso than you, it would appear.

And not because I'm awesome. But because in the course of having a discussion about a semantic issue, I took the time to look up the definitions. I wanted to know what I was talking about before I talked about it.

 

Read Gry's post, WedgeWalker. He's correct, and fanboyskywalker's post. It goes back to my "standing in a corner" theory.

 

by breaking it up, or by using it as a term. Sugi and her crew are fully bounty hunting. Does point 2 not fully apply here;



bounty hunter
n.
1. One who hunts predatory animals in order to collect a bounty.
2. One who pursues a criminal or fugitive for whom a reward is offered.
/i]

As I said Hondo sure does start it all(irrelevant), but once he come looking for trouble he is "pursued" by Sugi. Where and how does this not apply?

 

It seems I have to repeat myself over again: They weren't bounty hunting.
Seeking money isn't bounty hunting. Read Gry's post.

 

I have been a part of this discussion, so I include myself when I say this.

It's junk like this that give sci-fi/fantasy fans, and Star Wars fans in particular, a bad rep.

All this hubbubb over whether some computer animated triangles were portrayed as doing something that could be described by a particular term.

When it had nothing to do with the plot of the episode, any of the larger issues the episode touched on, or anything of that magnitude.

Oh, and Gry, I know you have to look at the compound term as a compound term. It didn't occur to me at first, but then it did. Amd I've tried to make that point in my last couple of posts.

So if you included me in "guys," I ask you to read what I've said the last couple of posts.

EDIT: Same goes for you GGrievous. Still haven't noticed that I've been agreeing with you on the defintion of the compound term for 3 posts now.