Why was AOTC not loved by the public and media?

Post-modern and old fashioned - such is the depth of Lucas' story

 

Ewan McGregor said recently that he understood why the first two prequels are written the way they are after he read the script for REVENGE OF THE SITH. That would include AOTC. I value Ewan's opinion. That's good enough for me. I loved AOTC.

 

Well, let's take a quick look at post modernity. Traditional storytelling methods are disrupted, like changing the setting of the film noir detective story from the gritty streets in the U.S. to a galaxy spanning mystery. The journey of the hero is being satirized and disrupted - our 'hero's' journey happens to be to the Dark Side. We could call AotC "A Portrait of the Sith as a Young Man." Anakin's journey mirrors Luke's jouurney, but ends with Anakin as Vader instead of with Anakin as a hero.

 

You say attack of the clones suck because the general american public did not like it??

Well, you reelected george w. bush, so I guess your argument that "the masses are always right" just went down the drain, eh?

 

Its interesting how Lucas took the time to develop Han Solo's gradual change from Rogue to responsible leader. This is great care taken considering Han is a supporting character in the scheme of Luke's story. Lucas succeded at transforming Han from a cocky Cowboy to a Husband-like figure over the course of the OT. And he wasnt even the main character. So, why is it that we get to the story of Anakin Skywalker and his tutelege under Obiwan that we must fill-in transitions with imagination? What happened to the skill used to show gradually and visually the change in Han Solo? Why couldnt that be applied to the Main character who above all is the most deserving of a visual transformation. Anakin's story is about transition and transformation yet here he shifts from first to third and third to fifth. Unconvincingly.

 

I would have to disagree. Remember, Anakin's personality, as set up in TPM is 'helpful'. He's basically good, but he defines good on his own terms. And he is not used to seeing both sides of an arguement, which we see in AotC during the picnic and when he wants to use Amidala as bait. So, what we see in the end, is a character who is doing what he believes is right, even though it flies in the face of conventional morality.

So, the real question becomes "Does Vader believe his actions are wrong?". If he feels justified in enforcing his will the way he does in the OT (and we can believe he does from the picnic scene in AotC), then his character is perfectly developed onscreen.

 

Wow, very nicely said. I never thought of it that way.

 

Traditional storytelling methods are disrupted, like changing the setting of the film noir detective story from the gritty streets in the U.S. to a galaxy spanning mystery

Eh? How is the traditional storytelling method disrupted ? They chase a villain, find some clues, continue onward, all in the same world.

The journey of the hero is being satirized and disrupted - our 'hero's' journey happens to be to the Dark Side

Well it's a tragedy by the end of ep. III but how is that a satire? And what's post-modern about it?

Perhaps you should give your definition of "post-modern" .

All of the SW movies are very traditional in their storytelling, Lucas has often talked about his intention to re-tell ancient myths because they have lessons about how we live our lives and these are constant. That sort of stuff doesn't sound like post-modernism to me.

Further more - his filmaking style is also very old fashioned, very linear, straightforward.

g

 

From dictionary.com...

"Of or relating to art, architecture, or literature that reacts against earlier modernist principles, as by reintroducing traditional or classical elements of style or by carrying modernist styles or practices to extremes."

In other words, post modernism is anything that reacts against modernism. Unfortunately, the genre itself is one that manages to escape attempts at definition, except by what it is not. Post modernism is not modernism, and that's all we have to work with.

Obi Wan's film noir detective scenes are postmodern because they disrupt the traditional setting which is all imortant to that genre.

When you call Star Wars a tragedy, you mean the PT, right? Because the OT has the happy ending for Luke, although it is not, in any sense, a traditional 'romance story'. And the PT is a bildungsroman for Sith.

gezvader says "All of the SW movies are very traditional in their storytelling, Lucas has often talked about his intention to re-tell ancient myths because they have lessons about how we live our lives and these are constant."

First, what Lucas 'intends' is not relevant to the discussion. What is important is what we see onscreen. This isn't biographical criticism - we need to be able to find the threads in the texts (films) if we want to discuss them.

So, in AotC, we see Anakin on the hero's journey. I think we can all agree that he is developing himself, learning from his mentors, etc. But, unlike a tragedy, Anakin is not motivated by personal gain. During the picnic, we see that Anakin's real desire is to spread order even if it must be by force (no pun intended). Unlike the lead in the Scottish play, Anakin's motives are altruistic.

Why does this make AotC post modern? Because Anakin is a doppelganger of Luke - the two journey's mirror each others. But, in AotC, Anakin is ready to sacrifice Padme to his cause twice. Once, when he uses her as bait, and again, when Padme falls out of the gunship and Anakin leaves her. Luke, on the other hand, will not sacrifice his friends just for the sake of the cause (ESB). AotC shows us taht Luke's decision is the right one (people over government/politics).

Lastly, traditional techniques do not mean that a film is not 'postmodern'. Film is a language that functions with its own set of rules (meaning imparted by certain shots, looks, etc.). In AotC's case, the post modernity of the film comes from the story and the way it parallels the OT, not the way the film is shot.

 

The setting of the detective story is not critical to it. Lucas still uses every traditional convention of a detective story, just in space. A change of scenery alone does not at all constitute post-modernism. That only constitutes small changes to maintain relevancy. If it were post-modern, it would somehow depart from the conventions of a detective story, which it does not. In fact, Lucas went so far as to put a kitsch "diner" into the movie to make it seem more in line with the traditional detctive tale. That doens't seem like something you'd do if you were departing from tradition.

This is much like your claim that starting when Episode IV was post-modern, when in fact it is a convention of epics.

Further, Lucas's intention is of great importance. How can you so easily dismiss it? He clearly uses mythical conventions, as when he makes Anakin the product of a virgin birth.

You've yet to name anything that seems legitimately post-modern, Mimc.

 

First, the setting is an integral part of the film noir genre, just as the West is an integral part of the Western genre. Second, changing some of the accepted conventions of a genre is what makes something post modern. It's like changing the thematic concern of a sonnet. Or changing the subject in a haiku. Or making the cheerleader kill vampires rather than be a victim.

Plus, putting the diner sequence in the film shows how Obi Wan's story follows some of the conventions of film noir, while moving away from the integral setting.

Last, have you ever heard of authorial intent and intentional fallacy? These are the critical (academic critical, not Lenoard Maltin critical) ideas that allow scholars to do a Marxist rereading of Shakespeare. Shorthand, it just means that the important thing in the film is what we, as an audience, see in it rather than what someone says we should see in it.

Although, after taking a look at some of your last posts, I think you migt be trying to goad me. Hmmm.

 

In other words, post modernism is anything that reacts against modernism. Unfortunately, the genre itself is one that manages to escape attempts at definition, except by what it is not. Post modernism is not modernism, and that's all we have to work with.

And there doesn't seem to be a lot of consensus on what 'modernism' is either.

Obi Wan's film noir detective scenes are postmodern because they disrupt the traditional setting which is all imortant to that genre.

But they don't disrupt anything.

When you call Star Wars a tragedy, you mean the PT, right?

Yep, that's why I said "by the end of ep.III". But how is it a satire?

But, unlike a tragedy, Anakin is not motivated by personal gain.

Yes he is - he has a problem letting go, he wants to hold onto things.

Why does this make AotC post modern? Because Anakin is a doppelganger of Luke - the two journey's mirror each others

Lucas describes it as something like a symphony where certain events happen in rhyming fashion to 2 characters, but I don't see why that makes it postmodern, I'm sure other authors have used two characters and had them go through similar situations in a rhyming fashion.

Here's a quote from my AOL dictionary:

in very crude terms, where a modernist artist or writer would try to wrest a meaning from the world through myth, symbol, or formal complexity, the postmodernist greets the absurd or meaningless confusion of contemporary existence with a certain numbed or flippant indifference, favouring self-consciously ?depthless? works of fabulation, pastiche, bricolage, or aleatory disconnection.

That's pretty much the way I understood postmodernism: that it rejects formality or traditionalism and embraces absurdity and flippancy.
Lucas's SW seems determined to reinforce morality, that doesn't seem to chime with postmodernism.

I don't see SW as postmodern at all, it's not ironic or flippant in it's attitude, it's very structured in classical ways.

To my mind postmodernism in film would be Jean Luc Goddard or the "Scream" films, these tend to pastiche and be absurd and break the 4th wall.

Your definition just seems to be that if the film evokes another genre or parallels another characters' storyline then it's postmodern.
But to me that's just quoting and rhyming.

Interesting debate tho.

g

 

The problem with AOL's definition is that it doesn't leave room for any 'serious' works. Think about the way AotC contrasts the struggle of Anakin with Threepio's experience being left on Tatooine and then rebuilt. His entire existence is treated as something like a joke, even though I'm sure he would see it differently.

Here's another way of looking at it. When AOL talks about postmodernism as being flippant, they refer to those elements in culture that are easily seen as self reflexive. Warhol paintings, or "Bright Lights, Big City" ( a great book, BTW). But there's the other side of it, which can take pop elements and invest them with greater meaning (Bill's Superman speech in KB II, or Midnight's Children by Salmon Rushdie). In AotC, those elements that we recognize fromour own film culture (arena battles, film noir) are invested with new meaning because instead of being used to develop the hero, they develop the villain. And the strange combination of elements are pastiche (or bricolage, R.I.P. Jaques Derrida).

 

I've heard of rejecting authorial intention, and of deconstructionism--I just don't think its a very worthwhile path.

They wouldn't have produced a work if they didn't have something to say. If they'd only wanted you to take whatever you wanted to from it, they could have not done anything in the first place. Therefore, I see ignoring authorial intention as tantamount to disrespecting the author and his work.

If you want to look at a work of art and take your own thing away from it, great. That's why you make art. But don't bastardize someone else's hard work for your own purposes.

All that to say no, sorry if it appears I was trying to goad you. I was just saying that your argument didn't seem very convincing to me.

 

I would say that AOTC was a great movie. All my friends thought so to, and none of them is what you call a "Star Wars fanatic". Of course not everything was perfect but it was a good movie. So if you don't like it JUST DON'T WATCH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The problem with AOL's definition is that it doesn't leave room for any 'serious' works. Think about the way AotC contrasts the struggle of Anakin with Threepio's experience being left on Tatooine and then rebuilt. His entire existence is treated as something like a joke, even though I'm sure he would see it differently.

And a very poor contrast it is. In aotc we don't even see 3po being rebuilt.
3PO is mostly used for poor gags in aotc, but that's not postmodern, it's simply using him as comic relief.

In AotC, those elements that we recognize fromour own film culture (arena battles, film noir) are invested with new meaning because instead of being used to develop the hero, they develop the villain.

Those scenes develop the heroes and the villains, nothing postmodern in that.
But assuming you're only talking about Anakin - He may later go onto to become a villain but there's nothing particularly postmodern about that, I'm pretty sure ancient myths are full of good people who go on to fall to the dark side. Frodo does in LOTR, is that postmodern?


Can I backtrack, because you seem to be contradicting yourself at times :

but the hero myth is disrupted in AotC by Anakin's underlying self-serving nature

But later on you said:

. But, unlike a tragedy, Anakin is not motivated by personal gain.

Isn't that a contradiction ?

Also - AotC stands on its own as an excellent example of post-modern storytelling.

and then later:
First, what Lucas 'intends' is not relevant to the discussion. What is important is what we see onscreen.

So has Lucas made this "excellent example of post-modern storytelling" unintentionally? Surely he's cineliterate enough to know what he intends .

Finally - can I ask you this - if it is postmodern then what do you think it's saying ? For instance in "Scream" the filmmakers are saying "we know that you know that we know" etc.
But what does the postmodernism of aotc say to you ?

g

 

Well, lets go through this step by step.

"In aotc we don't even see 3po being rebuilt.
3PO is mostly used for poor gags in aotc, but that's not postmodern, it's simply using him as comic relief."

We don't need to see him be rebuilt to know that his reconstruction is taking place. And it is post modern that, under other circumstances, we see the development of a parallel to the hero as comedic.

"Those scenes develop the heroes and the villains, nothing postmodern in that.
But assuming you're only talking about Anakin - He may later go onto to become a villain but there's nothing particularly postmodern about that, I'm pretty sure ancient myths are full of good people who go on to fall to the dark side. Frodo does in LOTR, is that postmodern?"

Frodo comes back from his dark side in the finest tradition of old myths. In order for him to be analogous to Anakin, Frodo would have to have kept the ring and used it for what he perceived as good.

We know Anakin becomes a villain - just ask Capt. Antilles on the Tantive IV, or Han after a bout of torture. The reason Anakin's development is post modern is that he seems to believe that what he does is always right. Again, a parallel to the Scottish play, and we know that intertextual structures are post modern.

About what you call my 'contradiction'... Anakin believes that he is right in what he does. His desire for 'more power' ("Obi Wan is just holding me back" speech) is both self serving and selfless because Anakin wants that power in order to do what he perceives as good deeds. More post modern character construction - a character is complex, not one dimensional.

As for leaving Lucas out of it... Lucas knows what he gets out of the movie. However, since he and I don't share experiences, we do not react in the same way to the same stimulus (semiotics - same signifiers, different signifieds). So, what I see in AotC is not what Lucas sees.

To conclude - I don't believe that a film must have a 'message' in order to be successful art. In fact, the opposite is the case in post modern film. There is no moral, save what I, as the audience, interpret from seeing the film. And each one of my experiences shapes my interpretation. So the meaning of the film is in flux - I'm sure many people will look more favorably on the PT when the average moviegoer realizes that Palpatine is the Emperor.

 

"but the hero myth is disrupted in AotC by Anakin's underlying self-serving nature"

"But, unlike a tragedy, Anakin is not motivated by personal gain."

Dude, that is a glaring contradiction. Defending it as something else kills your credibility within the debate. If it was something you hadnt thought out, just admit that. You have some good points and you dont want them to be disregarded because you cant simply say "TOOSHAY!"

I did like what you said about Frodo in regards to Anakin though. Keeping the evil Ring to use it for good is something Anakin would do. He wants to be all powerful and stop people from dying, and he will believe the darkside can grant him this power. Borimir once thought as he did. He thought he could use the Ring to help his people but he would have been turned too. The Ring must be destroyed and the Darkside must never be tapped into. Thats why I like Obiwan so much. His purity is absolute and he has fully accepted his path- he is, in that regard, immune from the darkside. It isnt even an option for him.

Man, this discussion has changed.

 

Quit bashing the prequels man, I used to do this but maybe I reached geeky enlightenment or something because I seem to like all the Star Wars films. But AOTC is pretty good but I heard ROTS makes it even better, don't know how that works.

 

Well, if it makes you feel better, then touche.

But I do think that Anakin, in TPM is selfless. And sometimes, in AotC, he acts for what he considers 'the greater good' (like trying to free his Master). Compare that to the way he slaughters Tuskens (a self serving act). He isn't like Luke, who basically stays the same in each film (whiny Luke, doubting Luke, and Jedi Luke, respectively).

 

Saving his master wasnt for the "greater good" but for the other element you mentioned, "self serving". He only goes when Padme says shes going to help Obiwan. "Why must I be like that, why must I chase the Cat. Nothin but the Dog in me."-George Clinton

"Well, if it makes you feel better, then touche"

The suggestion was for you, not me. But thanks for the correct spelling. Danm search engines all spelled it "tooshay"

 

And it is post modern that, under other circumstances, we see the development of a parallel to the hero as comedic.

But we DON'T see 3po's development, he just appears rebuilt. And it isn't comedic, how can it be when we don't see it? And why should it be considered postmodern anyway ?

Frodo comes back from his dark side in the finest tradition of old myths

So does Anakin.

In order for him to be analogous to Anakin, Frodo would have to have kept the ring and used it for what he perceived as good.

But you're ignoring your own point now, you said that the arena scenes were postmodern because they developed a character who will become a villain . LOTR has scenes which are typical to developing the hero, Frodo, who also will become a villain, so does that make LOTR postmodern.?

The reason Anakin's development is post modern is that he seems to believe that what he does is always right

WHAT?? Okay, now you've gone beyond personal interpretation. Tell me how you can perceive his confession scene re the Tusken slaughter as someone who believes he was in the right. It's plain that he is in great anguish and doubt over the matter.

And even if he did believe what he was doing was always right why would that equal postmodern ?

Again, a parallel to the Scottish play, and we know that intertextual structures are post modern.

"we" do?
intertextual :
"a term coined by Julia Kristeva to designate the various relationships that a given text may have with other texts. These intertextual relationships include anagram, allusion, adaptation, translation, parody, pastiche, imitation, and other kinds of transformation."

You could find allusions to other films in just about any film, making most films postmodern by your standard.
No, that is far too broad .

More post modern character construction - a character is complex, not one dimensional.

What makes you think that complex characters = postmodernism?

As for leaving Lucas out of it... Lucas knows what he gets out of the movie. However, since he and I don't share experiences, we do not react in the same way to the same stimulus (semiotics - same signifiers, different signifieds). So, what I see in AotC is not what Lucas sees.

Correct. You're free to interpret it in any way you want.
But - do you think he intended to make a postmodern film ? Has he ever said anything which makes you think that that is how he sees it?

I don't believe that a film must have a 'message' in order to be successful art. In fact, the opposite is the case in post modern film

I agree with you, but Lucas has said many times that SW is about teaching morality and how to live etc. so if you're right and it is postmodern then he's failed at putting his message across.

I'm sure many people will look more favorably on the PT when the average moviegoer realizes that Palpatine is the Emperor.

Well, as far as I know, most of them already know this. But why do you think it'll make a difference?

g

 

"But we DON'T see 3po's development, he just appears rebuilt."

We see him in one stage in TPM, and at another stage in AotC. Therefore, we see progress/development. And we see his character develop (his role at Shmi's funeral, or in the Arena) over the course of the film.

"So does Anakin."

Anakin engages in dark side behaviour, but he's not really evil. AotC shows us that he believes that he is doing good by enforcing his will (again, the picnic scene). Think of a certain Scottish play by Shakespeare.

"But you're ignoring your own point now, you said that the arena scenes were postmodern because they developed a character who will become a villain . LOTR has scenes which are typical to developing the hero, Frodo, who also will become a villain, so does that make LOTR postmodern.?"

In some ways, yes. Despite the fact that Tolkien never thought of English literature as a subject to be studied in Universities, he does disrupt a number of conventions in the Hobbit and LotR trilogy.

"WHAT?? Okay, now you've gone beyond personal interpretation. Tell me how you can perceive his confession scene re the Tusken slaughter as someone who believes he was in the right. It's plain that he is in great anguish and doubt over the matter.

And even if he did believe what he was doing was always right why would that equal postmodern ?"

Anakin is filled with rage because of Shmi's death, sure. But does he ever say that he's sorry for the death of the Tuskens? I was under the impression that his grief and anguish is related to the fact that he couldn't save his mother. And it is Anakin's development as a villain paralleling Luke's development as a hero that is post modern. Luke also failed to save his friends (they saved themselves, in ESB) but didn't become an agent of the Dark Side.

"intertextual :
"a term coined by Julia Kristeva to designate the various relationships that a given text may have with other texts. These intertextual relationships include anagram, allusion, adaptation, translation, parody, pastiche, imitation, and other kinds of transformation."

In the case of AotC, we're not just talking about a single reference (like Chewie doing the Tarzan yell in RotJ). The film's major storyline, Anakin's, develops exactly like Macbeth (dang, I said it) and like Luke's. The supporting storyline, Obi Wan's, is film noir detective. Assuming that intertextuality is something that functions in degrees, then this has a high enough degree to qualify as post modern. Think of Ulysses, by James Joyce. AotC is analagous.

"You could find allusions to other films in just about any film, making most films postmodern by your standard.
No, that is far too broad ."

Saying you can find allusions in any film is also a broad statement.

"What makes you think that complex characters = postmodernism?"

I don't think that characters were complex before modernity. It was all too easy to sum up a character's essence in a few quick, often glib lines when reading Shakespeare, or early CanLit, or Shelley, or Behn, or even Stevenson...

I could go on.

"But - do you think he intended to make a postmodern film ? Has he ever said anything which makes you think that that is how he sees it?"

It doesn't matter what he 'intended'. What matters to me is how I see it.

" I agree with you, but Lucas has said many times that SW is about teaching morality and how to live etc. so if you're right and it is postmodern then he's failed at putting his message across."

Not if someone gets a message out of it. Just because I see it differently doesn't mean that someone else sees it this way. Admittedly, I (and from the looks of things, you) have more formal training in interpretation and criticism. Our view of the film is probably quite different from a younger audience member.

"Well, as far as I know, most of them already know this. But why do you think it'll make a difference?"

I'm not sure that movie critics (on average) have quite made the connection. And it appears (to me, anyways) to give the film more subtlety. L

 

Let's face it, Star Wars (OT) changed the way movies are seen. And so it makes sense that the reception a movie receives nowadays is different from what happenned when a movie was popular in the late seventies/early eighties.

Nah, the public was so ready for Episode I, and it just didn't deliver. People wanted an exciting and imaginative franchise, a la Lord of the Rings, and the prequels failed to deliver that on so many levels. People wanted Star Wars back...they weren't down on it originally just because they weren't the OT. People got upset because they were so inferior to the OT that the hype didn't match what they were seeing on the screen. Rationalize it any way you want...

Exactly - the newer films are only different in your mind - you must unlearn what you have learnt.

Right...that argument doesn't hold water either. I have the DVDs of all of them, and the differences between the OT and PT are striking when you watch them back to back. The greatest difference is an abundance of plot in the PT at the expense of character development. In the OT, you knew who Luke was when he stared off into the twin suns with wanderlust, and you knew Han's character when he shot Greedo under the table and argued skeptically about the force with Ben. These moments are almost non-existent in the PT, and what little character development exists is muted by poor line delivery.

Yeah the prequels are even batter than the classic trilogy, but many people just don't want to admit the classic trilogy has many of the same "flaws" as the prequels, some way worse than the prequels.

I respect your opinion, but the public doesn't agree by and large. Again, if you were around when the OT was released it was a phenomenon. They were loved by kids and adults alike, and Star Wars was everywhere. Now, you see a dwindling of hype since Episode I, which was anticipated so fervently because of the OT. The OT was never as critically panned as the PT is.

As for the OT having the same flaws...no way. The PT is still drawing creative ideas from the innovative ship and creature designs of the OT. The acting in the OT is much better than the PT, and the actors look like they are at least making an effort to deliver their lines with some semblance of emotion.

How often in a montage of Great Film Moments on TV have you seen Ben saying "The Force will be with you, always..." or Vader saying to Luke "No, I am your father!"

These are great film moments treasured by many, and time has proved that. Now...what great moments or lines from the PT will be remembered by filmgoers? Anyone?

With some, I think it might be an age problem - after all, your focus determines your reality.

Nah...the OT could be enjoyed by children and adults alike. Except for the stupid Ewoks, nothing in the OT insulted your intelligence like Jar Jar Binks, Boss Nass, a diner in space, ridiculous looking pod racers, annoying two-headed announcers, or the idea of a bounty hunter paying another bounty hunter to launch a centipede-delivering robot for him.

I dont hate AOTC and I do watch it from time to time- but as the trilogy tailored to the birth of Darth Vader, it doesnt live up no matter what people force themselves to say.

Exactly. Imagine how cool it would have been if Anakin was a likable charcter who succumbed to the dark side, instead of an annoying brat? Imagine if a good actor had delivered his lines, and the romance didn't feel so forced and awkward? Lucas blew it.

Remember when Star Wars took you to a galaxy far, far away and you marveled at how alien it was? The Mos Eisley cantina? Cloud City? Yoda? Hoth?

Now, Lucas seems intent on taking that same galaxy and making it more familiar. A diner in space? Why would we want to see an Earth diner in space? A two-headed sports announcer? Is that cool?

We see that the two are close because they bicker. That's how some friends relate to each other.

Friends also show respect and affection towards each other. The relationship between Anakin and Obi

 

One other thing Devilanse. If you think I was talking about people here then you are dead wrong. I was referring to people who bash the prequels in the newspapers and on the movie/dvd websites every single chance they get. Maybe you see things differently, but I don't understand why people would continually insult a film that came out three/six years ago just because they didn't like it.

Because, like me, they probably love Star Wars. I grew up with the OT, and in the 70's the world lived and breathed Star Wars.

It's not that the PT is horribly bad, it's just horribly disappointing...and it taints the OT with it's lack of quality. I mean, Vader is one of my favorite characters, but now it is hard to see that black mask without picturing that whiny, wimpy Hayden Christensen and/or Jake Lloyd inside it.

THAT'S Darth Vader????

Once again its truth you speak. Thus, in other forums there are people who insist on yelling PLOT HOLE for line that out of the OT that hasn't been explained.

No, there are legitamate plot holes and absurdities in the PT.

Why does Jango hire another bounty hunter to activate a robot that will deliver a centipede? Why would he pay another bounty hunter to do that? Why, when discovered, does the robot lead it's pursuer directly back to the bounty hunter, instead of self-destructing or something? Does this make sense? Or is it just convenient to moving the plot forward, in hopes that you won't question it?

When the amendment to authorize a clone army comes up, Palpatine's sidekick suggests that "if only Senator Amidala were here" to introduce such a radical amendment, the army could be created. Jar Jar is dumb, but he and everyone else present at that meeting should have immediately said: "Uh, isn't she the Senator opposing the creation of an army????"

Logically, if you were going to hide someone's son...would you hide them at the former residence of their grandmother, where their grandmother was buried? Does that seem like a good idea? You see, graves exist because people often return to them to pay their respects.