why didnt anakin rescue shmi before?

Darth Muel, while I can't say I agree with EVERYTHING you've said, you do make some interesting, well thought-out points.

I wonder if Lucas works this hard when he's writing this stuff.

 

If the TF can get away with what amounts to war on a planet of the Republic, and Qui-gon can get away with bringing a "freed slave" back to Coruscant with no repercussions (assuming anyone even knows about Anakin's background), then why should ANYONE be at all concerned about the consequences of freeing Shmi, assuming there are any? I've yet to see any proof of this being illegal beyond the assertion that "it just is".

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I specifically only brought it up as an answer to why the Jedi don't stop the slave trade on Tatooine altogether, which someone asked. I don't think there are any legal issues with a private citizen (say, Padme) buying a slave in a private transaction (although one wonders whether that would technically be illegal, even if the slave was bought with the intention of freeing them). This is solely a plot device (not a plot hole), like the Han thing; Padme didn't free Shmi because if she did, there would be no story. However, I see no problems (storywise) with why the Jedi wouldn't free Shmi; in their worldview, there's no reason to favor her over any other slave, and in fact, it might be a problem if they bent their rules solely for Anakin, which I can't imagine would help the whole arrogance problem. And plus, if the Jedi Order acted as a whole to free Shmi, I assume that would be more problematic, politically, than a single maverick Jedi acting against the wishes of the Council.

 

To really hammer this home, let me reiterate a few points. First off, this isn't about the Jedi refusing to be compassionate. They are already compassionate. This isn't about the law--as already demonstrated by several posters, there are no legal obstacles. This is about one thing, and one thing only: priority.

Yes, it would be within the mission of the Jedi to free Shmi. But its also within there mission to do thousands of other things all over the Galaxy. More than they as an order can ever possibly do. So then, the question becomes, how do you choose which tasks to take on? The answer: Most pressing need.

Doctors do similar things. For instance, if a rapist and a saint both enter the Emergency room, both with wounds that could be fatal, but the rapists is more severe, the rapist would be treated first. Why? Because since the rapist has the most severe wound, he has the most pressing need. Does this mean that doctors don't like saints? That the AMA (or NMA, or whatever medical organization you like) supports rape? Absolutely not. It means they're putting their personal feelings aside and prioritizing according to greatest need.

In this case, what you haven't done (and can't do, I believe) is justify why Shmi would have the highest priority of all the things wrong in the Galaxy? Why is her plight the most pressing? Prove it, and then we cna find fault with the Jedi. And if she's not, well then I guess we understand why the Jedi never bothered to do anything about it. It's that simple.

 

"In this case, what you haven't done (and can't do, I believe) is justify why Shmi would have the highest priority of all the things wrong in the Galaxy? Why is her plight the most pressing?"

It should be pressing to Anakin.

 

It should be pressing to Anakin.

Yes indeed, that's why when he was finally away from Obi Wan, he goes to "help" Shmi.

Otherwise, it would be Obi Wan telling him "...feelings, betray you...made a committment to the Jedi order, a committment not easily broken". blah blah blah (as I think that's what Anakin hears

Anakin wants to be a Jedi, and controlled himself only so much. Eventually away from Obi Wan, he did the deed.

 

I still think that the plot is coherent...I think the jedi can be compassionate, the are living beings, but detached (contrary to anakin) because of their duty...and the problem at the time of the film is that they are too rigid, etc....(we already explained it).....and I repeat that this story has nothing to do with laws

 

"ESB had something similar with Han forgetting for three years he had a price on his head."

But Han WANTED to stay with the rebels, he didn't forget about the debt, he just kept putting it off. He's also on the run, the rebels went straight from the victory celebration to being on the run. And the Falcon is now a well recognized ship by the empire.

With everyone in the galaxy trying to kill him Han had to keep a low profile. He neglected his debt (he already had the money thanks to ANH) he just choose to stay. His motivation to stay outweighed his motivation to leave.

The key to good drama is to present the hero with a goal, and then put obstacles in their way.

GL set up the goal of freeing Shmi in TPM, but then failed to put any substancial obstacles in the path of the heros to prevent them from doing so after the battle of naboo, other then "the jedi wouldn't let him" which is bollocks because Anakin is a rule breaker who wouldn't care. Or "Shmi had a good life as a slave" which if you don't see the inherent problem with that excuse, then there's no helping you anyways.

 

pffffff.....anakin is BECOMING a rule breaker in ep2...and it's the first time he is not with obi-wan...but if you don't want to see the explanation that's it, nobody can do it for you

 

Scumb,

strange that your arguments to support Han are weaker than the ones we use to support this issue. He needn't leave the Alliance altogether to repay the debt--he needn't leave at all. He could wire the money. Even if he hand delivered it, it would only take a day or so at most. Further, only the Imperials and bounty hunters were trying to kill him. Which, since he was a smuggler, was already the case before he met Luke. Further, there is no reason for his ship to be any more infamous, since the only people that know of its participation in the events of ANH are A) the Imperials on the Death Star (all dead) and B) the Rebels (who wouldn't tell anyway). So what's your point?

In TPM, we have no indication that Anakin is a rule-breaker. Quite to the contrary, he seems very infatuated with the Jedi. This would make him more eager to obey their rules and imitate them. Defiance wouldn't come until after disillusionment. Further, while there is tension in his relationship with Obi-wan, they are still friendly much of the time, indicating that Anakin is not a full-blown rule-breaker. This is also suggested by his reaction to the news of Obi-wan on Geonosis. Everything seems to indicate he has only began breaking rules very recently in AOTC.

 

"pffffff.....anakin is BECOMING a rule breaker in ep2...and it's the first time he is not with obi-wan...but if you don't want to see the explanation that's it, nobody can do it for you"

Let's see. My mother is A SLAVE.

I'd like to help her out but...

...it would be 'against the rules'. Sorry, MOM!



(Just a friendly reminder that today is...MOTHER'S DAY!)

 

Let's see. My mother is A SLAVE.

I'd like to help her out but...

...it would be 'against the rules'. Sorry, MOM!

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You think Anakin doesn't want to break the rules? You think he's happy to just leave her there? Of course he isn't! But all the wishing he could help his mother doesn't mean diddly-squat if he is incapable of doing it. And since he is with his master all the time, and since his master follows a rule that says personal attachments are a no-no, he is, quite simply, incapable. He can't go anywhere without his master. AOTC is the first time he is away from his master, and thus the first time he can do anything about this.

I honestly don't see why this thread is on its fifth page. Anakin hasn't rescued his mother because the Jedi Council won't let him. It's as simple as that.

 

"I'm not sure what you're getting at here."

I'm responding to...

"pffffff.....anakin is BECOMING a rule breaker in ep2...and it's the first time he is not with obi-wan...but if you don't want to see the explanation that's it, nobody can do it for you"


"You think Anakin doesn't want to break the rules? You think he's happy to just leave her there? Of course he isn't! But all the wishing he could help his mother doesn't mean diddly-squat if he is incapable of doing it. And since he is with his master all the time, and since his master follows a rule that says personal attachments are a no-no, he is, quite simply, incapable. He can't go anywhere without his master. AOTC is the first time he is away from his master, and thus the first time he can do anything about this.

I honestly don't see why this thread is on its fifth page. Anakin hasn't rescued his mother because the Jedi Council won't let him. It's as simple as that."

Yes, and it's a stretttccchhhhh.

Using your reasoning...

...suppose that at any time over the ten year period, the Jedi Council are informed that Anakin's mother has been abducted by thugs. They are subjecting her to daily gang-rape and torturing her.

Anakin would want to break the rules. He wouldn't be happy to just leave her there, but all the wishing in the world doesn't mean diddly-squat, right? He is incapable of helping her. He is with his master all the time, and his master follows a rule that says personal attachments are a no-no.

You're saying that if Obi-Wan and the Jedi Council were informed of Shmi's predicament (no matter how bad it is) they would pat Anakin on the head and tell him they were going to do NOTHING because of rules about 'personal attachments'?

To me, that's a stretttccchhhh!

 

Hydronium I really agree with you, this thread is tiring and getting stupid...I call it bad faith(i don't know if it's the right word, in french: "mauvaise foi")

man, the jedi are not aware of shmi being tortured, even ani don't know, he dreams(always in motion is the future)...and remember that yoda didn't want luke to leave in esb, even if his friends' lives were in danger, because it would be to hard for him...it was a complex situation

 

"Hydronium I really agree with you, this thread is tiring and getting stupid..."

If that's how you feel, then continuing to post in it makes as much sense as...

...the people of Naboo not thanking Anakin by going back to Tattooine and throwing some money at Watto in order to free his mother.

"man, the jedi are not aware of shmi being tortured, even ani don't know"

It's not about Shmi being tortured. It's about knowing she is A SLAVE.

Anakin knows his mother is a slave. Padme knows. Anybody they tell will know. People are making lots of rationalizations for why characters shrugged off Shmi's enslavement, but the truth is, it's very likely her freedom could have easily been BOUGHT on a return visit. Make Watto "rich" and Shmi is free.

Leaving her behind, and not making any effort to change her situation is not a natural way for good people to react, IMO.

Shmi is left behind for one reason...so Anakin will have a motivation to 'lose it' ten years later.

 

...the people of Naboo not thanking Anakin by going back to Tattooine and throwing some money at Watto in order to free his mother.

This thread isn't about why the people of Naboo didn't free Shmi. Or why Padme didn't free Shmi. It's about why Anakin didn't free Shmi.

Anakin knows his mother is a slave.

Yes, he does know. And he can't do anything about it because the Jedi Council won't let him. Question answered.

It's about knowing she is A SLAVE.

So are lots of people. From the perspective of the Jedi Council, given that personal relationships are discouraged, what makes Shmi more important than any other slave? The Jedi can't free all the slaves, since that would be grossly overstepping their authority. What makes Shmi so important that they should even overstep their boundaries by that much? And "She's important to Anakin" is not an answer, since the Jedi don't believe that should be a factor.

And in regards to MBJ's earlier comments on that "overstepping their boundaries" thing, yes, Qui-Gon did do that when he freed Anakin. Thus the Council's irritation with Qui-Gon and reluctance to train Anakin. However, the damage had already been done, so it wouldn't really have done much good to return him then.

 

There's only one answer to this question that makes any sense at all: George Lucas has no idea how to tell a story anymore.

We're presented with characters who behave a certain way in one scene, then conveniently forget their prior actions in the next only to return to their previous habits later when it serves to move the 'story' forward. Sometimes this happens within the same scene. That's always fun.

Anakin didn't go back to free his mother because GL is a moron and couldn't think of a better way to orchestrate Anakin's descent into the Dark Side. That's it. There's no logic, no secret deleted scene or EU reason. GL can't write anymore.

This isn't Han putting off paying Jabba a crapload of money until it's too late. Not even the same league.

If Episode IV: A New Hope, Act II was Han freeing Chewbacca from the slavers and then leaving his parents behind because of (insert inane GL-supporting fanboy excuse here), Star Wars would never have gotten off the ground, let alone survived to Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, where Chewbacca finally gets around to reminding Han he still has a family and would they maybe get around to saving them -if they have time.
Oh, and ever heard of banks or loansharks or moneychangers. If a Brit wants to spend pounds in the States they get to go to this thing called a bank (if they're reputable) or a loanshark/moneychanger (if they're not) and exchange pounds for dollars. Wow, you mean tourists don't have to bet children on highspeed death races to make money nowadays? But I didn't think the UK government had influence over the US. True, but what the heck does that have to do with fugatives making a currency exchange with criminals? Not a heck of a lot.

Hell, use the 'Han could have borrowed something from the Rebels instead of risking being seen in the Falcon'-counter argument...the Jedi could have sold the Royal Naboo Starcruiser (great name that) and bought two ****** tramp freighters for the hump back to Coruscant.

*Phew* And that's the fifth or so thread about this gaping plothole that will never end.

 

"This thread isn't about why the people of Naboo didn't free Shmi. Or why Padme didn't free Shmi. It's about why Anakin didn't free Shmi."

And the answer is...

...because Lucas didn't want Shmi to have a happy ending. So he had the characters shrug off her circumstances because it was convenient to the story, even though their inaction appears a bit contrived.

"So are lots of people. From the perspective of the Jedi Council, given that personal relationships are discouraged, what makes Shmi more important than any other slave?"

So you're actually saying that the Jedi perspective is, 'if you can't help everyone, don't help anyone'.

"The Jedi can't free all the slaves, since that would be grossly overstepping their authority. What makes Shmi so important that they should even overstep their boundaries by that much? And "She's important to Anakin" is not an answer, since the Jedi don't believe that should be a factor."

So although you insist the thread is specifically about ANAKIN freeing Shmi, you're willing to discuss the Jedi because you feel you can rationalize their inaction...

...but you don't want to deal with the possiblity of the people of Naboo interceding because that is harder to rationalize away.

The fact is, the situation feels contrived because it is contrived...

...but that's okay. It's 'Star Wars'. It's going to be fanciful at times, and I accept that.

 

There's only one answer to this question that makes any sense at all: George Lucas has no idea how to tell a story anymore.

...

Anakin didn't go back to free his mother because GL is a moron and couldn't think of a better way to orchestrate Anakin's descent into the Dark Side. That's it. There's no logic, no secret deleted scene or EU reason. GL can't write anymore.

Actually, the opposite is true. George Lucas is setting the scene for Anakin's descent into the Dark Side.

In ANH Obi-Wan tells Luke about a young Jedi who turns to evil. The explanation at that time was that Obi-Wan and "Vader" had a duel and Obi-Wan knocked him into a live volcano (according to interviews given in 1977). That is why Vader wears the suit - because he can't regulate his body temp with charred skin and needs a portable iron lung to help him breathe.

But what caused this gigantic rift between the former Padawan and Master? What would make Anakin so angry that he would go after Obi-Wan?

The death of his mother. One that could have been prevented but, due to Obi-Wan's "interference" (not taking Anakin's nightmares seriously) made Anakin arrive too late to save her.

That my friends, is foreshadowing. A great writing device. Shmi was meant to stay a slave and she was meant to have a bad ending. It is the will of the Force.

 

...because Lucas didn't want Shmi to have a happy ending. So he had the characters shrug off her circumstances because it was convenient to the story, even though their inaction appears a bit contrived.

Did it really look like Anakin was just shrugging off Shmi's circumstances? Heck, there was a whole scene on how he's been dreaming about her and he can't sleep because of it. Doesn't sound like he's shrugging anything off there.

So you're actually saying that the Jedi perspective is, 'if you can't help everyone, don't help anyone'.

No, and I attempted to clarify that in the next sentence. Rescuing any slave, even Anakin, is overstepping their authority. If you're going to do it, it better be for a good reason. "Because it's one of our guys' mothers", to the Jedi, is not a good reason.

So although you insist the thread is specifically about ANAKIN freeing Shmi, you're willing to discuss the Jedi because you feel you can rationalize their inaction...

No, it's because the immediate rebuttal to "The Jedi won't let Anakin rescue her" is "Why won't the Jedi let Anakin rescue her?"

There's only one answer to this question that makes any sense at all: George Lucas has no idea how to tell a story anymore...GL is a moron...GL can't write anymore.

Translation: I don't like the story of the prequels, therefore there must be something wrong with George Lucas.

Wait, that's asinine.

Oh, and calling someone a "moron"? Last refuge of a person with no real argument.

Oh, and ever heard of banks or loansharks or moneychangers. If a Brit wants to spend pounds in the States they get to go to this thing called a bank (if they're reputable) or a loanshark/moneychanger (if they're not) and exchange pounds for dollars. Wow, you mean tourists don't have to bet children on highspeed death races to make money nowadays? But I didn't think the UK government had influence over the US. True, but what the heck does that have to do with fugatives making a currency exchange with criminals? Not a heck of a lot.

What? I think you have your conversations mixed up. I don't see anything in the topic about money exchange, or whatever this paragraph is about.

 

suppose that at any time over the ten year period, the Jedi Council are informed that Anakin's mother has been abducted by thugs. They are subjecting her to daily gang-rape and torturing her.

Seeing as how Tatooine is not in Republic space they would not get much news about her if any at all.

 

"...because Lucas didn't want Shmi to have a happy ending. So he had the characters shrug off her circumstances because it was convenient to the story, even though their inaction appears a bit contrived."

"Did it really look like Anakin was just shrugging off Shmi's circumstances? Heck, there was a whole scene on how he's been dreaming about her and he can't sleep because of it. Doesn't sound like he's shrugging anything off there."

Aside from having bad dreams, what efforts were ever made to free Shmi?

You seem to want to ignore the fact that it would have been natural and made perfect sense for Anakin to call in a favour from Padme ten years earlier when he was standing a few feet away from her and she was extremely grateful because he had just SAVED HER PLANET.

Ten year old Anakin: "Padme, before I go off to become a Jedi, there's one thing that would give me peace of mind. Could you help my mother? I would feel better knowing she wasn't going to be a slave for the rest of her life."

Padme: "After SAVING OUR PLANET, it's the least we could do."

Wouldn't it make sense for someone in Anakin's position to do that?

I think it would make sense and require little effort.

But then Shmi's character would appear to have a happy ending, and Lucas doesn't want that, so it doesn't happen. A few years later, fans who want to defend the writing conjure up excuses for why it couldn't happen ( excuses like currency, it's immoral to buy a slave, even to free them, etc.) but the truth is, the characters make no effort because...

...Lucas didn't want them to.

It's a common problem in writing when there is an easy solution to a problem so an excuse has to be contrived. On 'Star Trek' they have the transporter that can pop them in and out of dangerous situations. This lessens the drama, so every week the writers have to conjure up some reason why the transporter can't be used.

I'm not bashing Lucas' writing. I'm just responding to the question "why didn't Anakin rescue Shmi before?"

The answer is...

...there is no 'good' reason, and apparently, he didn't even try.

 

A few years later, fans who want to defend the writing conjure up excuses for why it couldn't happen ( excuses like currency, it's immoral to buy a slave, even to free them, etc.)

And you'll notice that I don't use those arguments. I stated above that I believe that Padme not buying Shmi's freedom is solely a plot device, like the Han thing, and is there to move the story along. However, I do not think there's a problem with Anakin not rescuing Shmi (as per the topic), since due to the Jedi Council's limitations on his actions, he is unable to. This is the part that I don't see why there's such a big fuss about (and, incidentally, until this topic, there wasn't a fuss at all because as I see it, the movie makes it perfectly clear that Anakin's hands are tied due to his being a padawan).

 

"suppose that at any time over the ten year period, the Jedi Council are informed that Anakin's mother has been abducted by thugs. They are subjecting her to daily gang-rape and torturing her."

"Seeing as how Tatooine is not in Republic space they would not get much news about her if any at all."

It was obviously a hypothetical question...that you chose to deflect to avoid answering.

 

"And you'll notice that I don't use those arguments. I stated above that I believe that Padme not buying Shmi's freedom is solely a plot device, like the Han thing, and is there to move the story along."

If that is your position, then we are in basic agreement.

As I've said previously, I don't let it interrupt my enjoyment of the story.

 

It was obviously a hypothetical question...that you chose to deflect to avoid answering.

Oh I answerd it in the fact that they would not be getting news from the planet. Even if it was in the Republic. Which if it was in the Republic there would be no slaves.