Why does Bail Organa assume that the clones killing Zet Jucassa are the bad guys?

Ok, so in ROTS Bail Organa is told that there's been a rebellion and he has to leave by a clone. He says ok, although he's wary and a bit suspicious. Then this kid comes up and starts just slicing through clones, being the aggressor in the situation. We as the audience know he's trying to escape, but Bail, from his point of view, just sees a force user start killing clones for no reason. The clones fire back and kill him. What if the rebellion mentioned was a few padawans fed up with the rules going saber crazy? But Bail automatically assumes the clones are bad, screams No! and flees, even though the clones never fire at him.

As i said, Bail does turn out to be right. But put in perspective, he has no idea what's going on, and if someone came up to a group of police officers and started killing them with a sword, would you think they're the bad guys if they shot him while he was attacking them? I know his kid-hood complicates things, but he can use the freaking force and is actively killing troopers.

I don't know, maybe i missed something earlier, i was watching the attack on the temple scene by itself when i noticed this, been awhile since i watched the whole film. But if I'm not missing something, this is a potential plot-hole.

 

I think that he was just upset by the fact that they killed a kid, and remember Bail was also a close allie to the Jedi, so he was probably hurt by seeing the downfall of a Jedi.

 

Well, apart from the fact that he saw a child gunned down, Bail was well & truly sympathetic to the Jedi, rather than this army of clones that he was opposed to from the start (even before he knew of its existence).

Try to imagine a relatively moderate elected official witnessing a squad of police officers or a troop of soldiers gunning down some young teenager trying to escape his home, no matter what organisation the teenager belonged to. Then add to that the fact that the organisation was one the official had great respect for. He would immediately react with horror and assume the cops or soldiers were in the wrong, particularly if he was told to run along with no explanation, & what amounted to a veiled threat.

Bail's reaction never struck me as inconsistent or unreasonable at all. His response to the trooper is one of my favourite moments of ROTS - "It's time for you to go, sir." "And so it is." It's a very minor, but crucial little bit of dialogue - Bail Organa, a very old-school stalwart of the Republic, realises that it's all over.

 

Yeah, remember that when Bail went to investigate the "rebellion" the Clone immediatly pointed his gun at Bail's chest and told him it was time to leave. That would lead me to believe perhaps there is more going on than what I was told. If the clone troope simply raised his hand up in a stop signal and said "Sir, we cannnot allow you to pass and you should leave for your own safety." He might have been more inclined to believe there was rebellion by the Jedi.

It is so very appropriate for the situation as a whole.

 

Not sure I understand this thread.

To me it's clear that the clone is basically saying "Come with me or I'm going to shoot you", leaving Bail with no option. I can't see how Bail could assume anything other than Clones are bad m'kay.

 

Well, the clone isn't telling Bail to come with him... "I'm sorry, sir, but it's time for you to leave".

Anyway, I agree with Darth_Nub's great answer on this.

 

That's one reason I'd like the rebellion scenes back in, with Palpatine as supreme commander it would help show why he'd immediately assume Jedi are good. I'd also like the Clone Wars tv show to have a few episodes with Bail working with the Jedi, he's very pro Jedi in Ep III but in the deleted scenes if I recall correctly it's Padme who wanted to bring in the Jedi.

 

I would agree with darth nub, if the kid didn't cut through two clones before getting shot at, then cut through many more. It's more like if that teenager of your allegory started stabbing officers with a Katana, many of them, and started before they attacked. You see the difference there?

 

Well, Bail was a friend to the Jedi. Plus he probably never felt fully comfortable about the clones in the first place (judging by how he reacts to them in AOTC). And he sees them gun down a padawan, which isn't gonna earn them sympathy votes. Finally, they point their guns at him.

I wonder if this might've been a bit clearer if the movie still had the "Rebellion Formation" scenes included, but then again I don't know if Bail was in any of those. At least it would've shown there was a genuine opposition to Palpatine's power-grab, and put his attack against the Jedi into better context.

But for the most part, it's straightforward enough.

 

He was. They're on the DVD.

 

Cool, then. It's been forever since I watched them, as I actually think the movie is pretty strong without them. It makes the Jedi themselves the instigators of "Rebellion", rather than the Senate. But either way is cool.

 

I wish those scenes had been kept in ROTS.

 

I'm not a big fan of the scenes in question myself, aside from part of the Anakin-Palpatine-Padme one ( which seems to leave out a line of dialogue ). I guess I somehow expected more from the genesis of the Alliance than just "we're putting together an organization". Also, the whole Mon Mothma thing doesn't work for me. The actress seems nice and all, but she doesn't really look anything like Mon Mothma, and they gave her red hair. Red hair in the colloquial context meaning "orange". When the ROTJ Mon Mothma's hair was not that color at all.

 

True, the scenes as they appear in the deleted scenes on the DVD do come across as a little awkward. So I guess what I really mean is that I agree with the concept of those scenes, and that I wish they had done a better job executing them... and then included those better-executed scenes.

 

Yea, i love the idea of those scenes, but the scenes themselves are underwhelming.

And i see all of your points, considering his point of view already. Just wanted to test out an observation.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the scenes themselves work pretty well (though it seems like we weren't given all of them). I especially like the lighting and the cinematography throughout-- that Ani-Palp-Padme one has a great sunset look that's an echo of Anakin before the Jedi Council in TPM. I just think that the whole idea of a Rebellion is more interesting to me as something that the Jedi started. The focus on the Senate's Opposition party is cool, and I wish we had more of that in the Prequels (sadly, it seems the kind of thing that Lucas dialed back after hearing so many fans criticize it in TPM).

 

Wow.


Anyway, the fact he gunned down a kid doesn't mean squat really as the kid was more than capable and seemed to be killing clones quite easily,

think of the military, and a kid was using a machine gun, gunning down troops, are we expected to believe that a Earth military wouldn't open fire?

kid or adult.

 

Simply, Bail was pro-Jedi.

 

The GFFA may be kriffed up on things like General Ahsoka Tano, but still, killing a kid makes for Complete Monster territory in any galaxy.

 

I don't disagree,

but it happens,

not to turn this into a political debate, but it happens more than you think,

Vietnam, prime example.

 

Sorry, should have put "clones are bad, m'kay" in inverted commas as it was a south park reference

 

Bail saw the Jedi as heroes, as did much of the galaxy. The Jedi are the "good guys".

The Temple had been attacked, it was smoking. The clones were standing at a Temple docking station, rifles in hand.

Zett was just a kid. Guilty or not, he's still a kid.

Nobody gives a **** about the clones, they're just organic droids.

 

I don't believe your taking into context the part that happend seconds before when the clone aimed his gun at Bail's chest before telling him to leave. Like I said, if the clone had been less "aggressive" in telling Bail he needed to go, Bail might be more inclined to believe there really was a rebellion, or at least left open to the idea.

Also, it's been a little while since I saw the movie, but didn't the clones turn around and start shooting at Bail after they killed Zet? He(Bail) was leaving, in his speeder, and he yells "No!" That was all he did, he could have been yelling no over the fallen clones that were killed, but the clones turned an immediatly opened fire on Bail, for really no good reason.

I think the proper analogy for the situation would be seeing a kid gunned down by police, then after he is gunned down, the police turn around and start shooting at the witnesses. Now who are you going to be sympathetic with after that? The kid who was slicing apart police, or the police shooting at witnesses after shooting the kid? When you attempt to or actually do kill witnesses, usually means you have something to hide.

 

I remembered them shooting at Bail too, but when i re-watched it, they don't. A clone even audibly says 'Let him go' when another points his rifle as his speeder flies away. No one even tries to shoot him until he's fleeing and by that point he can't see them anymore.

I already agree with you anyway as I've written, but i don't think it's as obvious as you're all making it. I do think however that most people will just accept it, so it's really ok. It's not a bad scene by any means, and indeed, one of the best of ROTS in my opinion. Doesn't mean i won't pick it apart.

 

I don't really think Bail thought the clones were "bad guys" per se, but rather that something went wrong, them having turned on the Jedi-those same Jedi who went WITH them into war. I think the shocking effect of seeing the clones kill a kid, as well as a Jedi, made him think more "what is GOING ON!?" and just shocked at the situation-knowing something MAJOR has gone wrong here...


Not to mention, seeing the Jedi Temple in flames would also be quite daunting at that moment as well.