Full Series The Clone Wars Plot holes Thread

After rewatching most of the TCW series i found that due to either timeline jumping or writing error , there really is A LOT of plot holes in the series

For example
1. In Senate Murders all of the characters completely forgets about Bail Organa's injury brought to him in Pursuit for Peace
2. In Witches of the Mist , Anakin and Obi-wan just flies right into Dooku's command ship without any outside cannons stopping them

If any of you noticed any more Plot holes please be free to post them

 

In Witches of the Mist: Ventress just appears aboard Dooku's ship without any explanation.

 

<Sigh> In my opinion, TCW ended up a big mess that they never bothered to clean up. It ended up being no different than the Prequels, for that matter.

 

In before someone says the entire series was one giant plot hole.

 

Depending on how the Yoda arc goes . . . The Mortis Trilogy. 'Nuff said.

 

I prefer the term inconsistencies.

You'd think, after Mortis, Obi-Wan would've reported to the Council of potential confirmation of the prophecy and Anakin's display of his raw Force power; via the Daughter, he brought Ashoka back to life and matched the Ones. But, nope, no mention of the events after Mortis.

Nobody cared, it seemed.

There were occasions in which he was too powerful, as well.

But, at the same time, there were *many* occasions where he strayed towards the dark side in front of Obi-Wan, Ashoka, other Jedi, Padma and Clones - nobody seemed to care, again.

The Confederacy was so incompetent that you wonder why the war lasted so long.

General Grievous went from this intimidating machine in RoTS, to a pathetic character struggle to beat padawan's.

And, above all, this quote from RoTS is now a joke thanks to TCW;

 

My powers have doubled since we met last Tuesday, Count!

 

^^I laugh more to Obi-Wan's line for Grievous "And this time you won't escape"

 

Darn, you beat me to it

 

In Gungan Attack : Why didn't Riff Tamson just wait to blow up the ship until they they had boarded it ?

 

I think there's actually little that contradicts the films... it plays loose with events, but doesn't really contradict that much. A good example is the quote from ROTS you cited. It never actually states in the film the last time they met. We presume it was in AOTC, but TCW simply uses the the lack of clarity to play with events. Conversley, TWC keeps Anakin from sparring with Grievous because clearly the dialogue in ROTS shows that their first meeting was during the events of ROTS.

 

Because I'm pretty sure that ship is high enough up, that any people trying to return to it from the water would need assistance from the crew, assistance which wouldn't come considering Tamson killed all the crew to rig it. And eventually Anakin and co. would realize that no ones aboard when no one is responding to their hails.

 

From Senate Murders and Pursuit of Peace. We find out that the Senate is trying to deregulate the banks so that lines of credit can be extended to the Republic to fund the purchase of more clones. Padme wants to halt the production of clones and return to diplomacy. And in the end of Pursuit of Peace, Padme wins and the episode ends with Palpatine angrily venting to Mas Amedda.

This never got picked up again. The implication here is that Padme succeeded in stopping the deregulation of the banks and that the Senate can thus not afford to continue clone production.

Though I also thought it kind of odd that this was even a pressing issue, since it takes 10 years for a clone to mature. So that kind of assumes that the Senate was panicking over the state of its forces 10 years later, which is plenty of time to begin recruitment. The Republic didn't need those clones NOW, and even if they did, it would be irrelevant, since they limited by the speed at which clone maturation occurred. In AOTC, the Republic needed an army NOW, in regards to the plot of Pursuit of Peace, they had plenty of time to switch over to these stormtrooper patriots that Filoni mentions in regards to Rebels.

Though I guess I don't understand if the Republic was paying for clones before they ever went into production, or if payment was due when they became combat ready. If the latter, then it would have been a very pressing matter to be able to purchase these clones to compensate for losses.

 

At the end of "Assassin" Aurra Sing is arrested by Captain Typho and it is implied she is going to jail. Chronologically 4 episodes later in "Hostage Crisis", she is free to infiltrate the Senate Building with Cad Bane and company. I'm not saying she couldn't have escaped in between these episodes, but it's definitely a plot hole as it stands, considering she would have had to break out of the same jail that they are breaking Ziro out of shortly afterwards.

Not to mention all the Separatists who are arrested during TCW and are free to be killed on Mustafar in ROTS. Was Palpatine handing out "get out of jail free" cards like pizza coupons?

 

In Destroy the Malevolence Padmé mentions the leader of the Banking Clan wanting to negotiate to leave the separatists. This was of course a lie of Palpatine, but still with Senate Spy and episodes after it it was established that IGBC was instead neutral and not officially with the separatists (while plotted with them) Padmé's comment is now a plothole.

 

What I find more confusing is that in Senate Spy Clovis being involved in the funding of the new droid factory is a crime against the Republic, but on Pursuit of Peace Mak Plain tells Republic Senators the Banking Clan had given the Separatists a loan for more battle droids implying it wasn't a crime against the Republic.

As for the Banking Clan mention on Destroy Malevolence, I guess the best way for the line to make sense is that it was about San Hills extremist faction of the Banking Clan. Nute Gunray, Wat Tambor and San Hill being part of extremist factions of the Trade Federation, Techno Union and the Banking Clan mostly makes TCW and EU versions still fit together.

Shame it was never explained whether the other Corporations were neutral or not. TCW gave the impression that the Corporate Alliance was only Separatist with Voe Atell a representative for the Corporate Alliance stating that the Corporate Alliance would not allow peace to happen. There was also a hint that the Commerce Guild wasn't neutral, the Gossom Senator Amitta Fonti who was maybe a representative for the Commerce Guild. A Friend in Need heavily implied that both Senators were Separatists.

 

The stance of the commerce guilds within the war was just a huge, tangled mess. It didn't add anything to the plot, and it was all convoluted.

If it was understood that the commerce guilds were the root of much of the corruption in the Senate, I don't even understand why Palpatine would tolerate it, Palpatine should be using his emergency powers to look like a hero. He should be exposing this corruption and driving it from the Senate so that people will applaud him and grant him more emergency power.

 

Same problem as with Commerce guilds was the whole Onderon business. It was a separatist world but Republic couldn't openly help the rebels there(?) It was never explained what was the problem and why Republic needed so secretly help the rebels of Onderon. Was Onderon also officially "neutral" somehow or something?

 

Why? He's bragging about how much stronger he is. There is no reference to how long ago it was or location, just "the last time." There is no contradiction at all.

 

The last time they met is clearly a reference to their duel on Geonosis. Their entire conversation is a reference to the last time they met on Geonosis. "This time, we'll do it together". "I was just about to say that".

Their many duels in TCW not only nullifies the reference to Geonosis, it also makes the statement less plausible, less meaningful and overall less satisfying.

Just because the words aren't contradicted, doesn't mean it's not a contradiction. Just because it's not a contradiction to you, doesn't mean it's not a contradiction to others.

We've been through this a million times, I'm sure everyone knows what people mean when people say it's a contradiction, and I'm sure everyone who says it's a contradiction has been told it's not a contradiction. Why do we have to go through this a million times?

Not by your method it doesn't. If Anakin's line isn't clearly a reference to Geonosis, I don't see how the following clearly shows that this is their first meeting.

GENERAL GRIEVOUS: Skywalker...I was expecting someone with your reputation to be a little older.
ANAKIN: General Grievous...you're shorter than I expected.

Where does it say this is their first meeting? It doesn't, so therefore TCW can have Anakin face off with Grievous all they want and, according to your logic, it wouldn't be a contradiction. If it's not spelled out exactly in the movie, it's not a contradiction!

Oh, and by the logic of others, even if it is spelled out exactly in the movie, who cares! They're just wrong! Or they're lying! Or it's just from a certain point of view!

Grievous just stated his expectations for Skywalker. He doesn't say this is the first time they met, or that he is learning of Anakin's youth for the first time.

Ditto Anakin, he's just saying Grievous is shorter than he expected. He's not saying this is their first meeting, or that he's learning of the General's height for the first time.

These expectations could have been broken some time in the past. Say, during TCW. Perhaps Anakin and Grievous just haven't had a chance to express these thoughts to each other? Perhaps because they were too busy fighting each other? Perhaps Anakin and Grievous are just stating outdated information?

I can even say that Kenobi's "this time you won't escape" means that Grievous has confronted both Kenobi and Skywalker in the past, since he's meeting with both of them "this time", one can say that Grievous met both of them last time.

See, I've just found a way around the dialogue (and that's what we're doing here, finding ways around dialogue so we can contradict the spirit of the dialogue), therefore it's not a contradiction.

This specious reasoning can be applied to any line of dialogue.

 

^I disagree with CT, Grievous obviously never saw Anakin before, he is genuinely surprised about his young age. Anakin however is not really surprised but is just teasing him.

And that comment is not a clear reference to Geonosis, it is reference to all duels in which Anakin had confronted Dooku alone. It can be seen as reference to Geonosis and Anakin's actions there, but at least I always thought that they have met in duels during the war, never thought that they would've met only two times.

And nothing in that comment is 'nullified' now, Obi-Wan only says that to beat Dooku they have to act together THIS TIME. Also Anakin mentions that his powers are doubled since the last time they met. Obviously Lucas didn't want any direct reference to Geonosis back then.

 

Yes, their dialogue early in the third movie of the trilogy is referencing duels in TCW that hadn't even happened when the movie came out, because TCW hadn't even happened, and not the events late in the second movie of the trilogy.

Your reasoning is flawless. Your perception deep and impressive.

 

So you're kind of admitting that any perceivable contradiction can be written around and explained quite easily... and I agree... the best example being "from a certain point of view" (ROTJ)... indeed, the best examples (or those with the biggest ramifications) stemming from the films themselves - and most of us seem to have accepted those for decades.

One could also argue that one of the strengths of Star Wars is it's continuing ability to flip assumptions/expectations. I actually like that Darth Vader was actually Luke's dad and that the girl Luke had the hots for turned out to be his sister, and the Emperor was not a mere corrupted politician, but actually the biggest/baddest Sith Lord, that the Jedi order was too buerocratic and dogmatic for its own good, that Stormtroopers (Clonetroppers) were originally in the service of the Republic and that Anakin turned to the darkside not out of being inherently evil, but out of fear etc. etc.