The Point of Qui-Gon Jinn

[Slowpokeking]

So the fact that a few people and starfighters were lost in a battle paralyzed an entire planet from being able to free one slave?

 

Are you that blinded to the mental gymnastics you are going through in order to rationalize this?

 

Yes, the whole nation would need to mourn for the loss, make some further alliance with the gungans.

 

Again, free one slave is not something they need to do immediately , right after the war, no.

 

Even if they do, Palpatine once was the senator of Naboo and was behind Padme's election, now he was the chancellor and behind the Federation, he got tons of ways to stop it.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Slowpokeking

[Slowpokeking]

Yes, exactly. If anything, Palpatine should be loudly campaigning for Anakin's mother -- the mother of the hero of Naboo -- to be freed. That would be the most politically deft move he could make, if (as you assume) he knew about Shmi at that point in time. It would fit in with his goal of forming an emotional tie with Anakin. It would also fit in with his subsequent strategy to inflate Anakin's reputation as a hero (for propaganda purposes -- outlined most clearly in Stover's Revenge of the Sith novelization). All of that would make sense, if we're assuming that Palpatine was as interested in Anakin as you believe he was, so early on.

 

Palpatine can't stop help that's never sent. We have no evidence that any help was sent. We have no evidence that he stopped it. In fact the direction of Shmi's life over the period between Episodes I and II suggests that Palpatine had no hand in it. All of the above points to a deficiency in the writing. That you can (try to) rationalize (painfully) a possible explanation for what is clearly a massive oversight on Lucas' part is not justification for that oversight.

 

Why? He was already the Chancellor and don't need to care too much about Naboo. Most of the other republic political power don't care too much about Anakin at all.

 

As for Anakin, he needed to let him leave his mother and let him have more time to talk with him when he was not doing his Jedi training.

 

It's not a oversight, Palpatine already thought about take Anakin as apprentice when he was elected, surely he could keep an eye on his mother, make sure she won't leave Tatooine. It's totally logical.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Slowpokeking

[Invictos]

[A long list of non sequiturs]

 

Uh, no. By invoking real-life dynastic monarchs in a desperate attempt to justify the concept of an elected, 13 year-old queen, you've officially jumped the shark. But if it's any consolation, I truly admire your persistent shifting of the goal posts!

[Slowpokeking]

Uh, no. By invoking real-life dynastic monarchs in a desperate attempt to justify the concept of an elected, 13 year-old queen, you've officially jumped the shark. But if it's any consolation, I truly admire your persistent shifting of the goal posts!

 

Well it was he who tried to jump off this idea, started to talk about Naboo's structure.

 

There were even younger queens elected before in Naboo. There was strong political power behind her and create great image for her, against a highly corrupted king, that's not a big deal at all. Even in US there were 18 years old guy elected as mayor.

[Invictos]

Yes, the whole nation would need to mourn for the loss, make some further alliance with the gungans.

 

Again, free one slave is not something they need to do immediately , right after the war, no.

 

Even if they do, Palpatine once was the senator of Naboo and was behind Padme's election, now he was the chancellor and behind the Federation, he got tons of ways to stop it.

 

You heard it here first, folks: "immediately" describes any action (or inaction) that takes place (or doesn't) over the course of ~10 years.

 

Likewise, Palpatine has such iron control over everything that occurs on Naboo (and Tatooine, for that matter) that we should not only assume that his plans are always successful; we should assume that everything that happened did so according to his grand plan. Of course, he wanted the Trade Federation to kill those two troublesome Jedi, and that didn't work out -- and Palps wanted the Trade Federation to kill Padme too, and ... uh, the result kinda differed -- but any situation, whether described on screen or invented out of whole cloth after the fact, should be credited to Palpatine.

 

(You are either aggressively and willfully obtuse, or you're incapable of grasping a simple argument. What part of, "No one even tried to free Shmi," don't you understand?)

Edited May 19, 2012 by Invictos

[Darth_Solrac]

I'm watching EP 1 right now (Spike SW marathon). A slightly better appreciation for Jinn....

[Slowpokeking]

You heard it here first, folks: "immediately" describes any action (or inaction) that takes place (or doesn't) over the course of ~10 years.

 

Likewise, Palpatine has such iron control over everything that occurs on Naboo (and Tatooine, for that matter) that we should not only assume that his plans are always successful; we should assume that everything that happened did so according to his grand plan. Of course, he wanted the Trade Federation to kill those two troublesome Jedi, and that didn't work out -- and Palps wanted the Trade Federation to kill Padme too, and ... uh, the result kinda differed -- but any situation, whether described on screen or invented out of whole cloth after the fact, should be credited to Palpatine.

 

(You are either aggressively and willfully obtuse, or you're incapable of grasping a simple argument. What part of, "No one even tried to free Shmi," don't you understand?)

 

Are you saying Palpatine didn't know about Shmi after a few years? And Shmi was freed like 2-3 years after EP I and got married. Yeah Palpatine didn't succeed on every thing. But he did succeed on a lot of things, are you saying he failed once so he couldn't prevent it?

 

Well, since Palpatine was able to handle it, it's highly possible that they didn't succeed. And nowhere even said Naboo people care about Anakin that much.

 

It could be explained well especially with the EU materials, but you just refuse to accept it. I don't think you look that hard upon OT.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Slowpokeking

[Invictos]

Well it was he who tried to jump off this idea, started to talk about Naboo's structure.

 

There were even younger queens elected before in Naboo. There was strong political power behind her and create great image for her, against a highly corrupted king, that's not a big deal at all. Even in US there were 18 years old guy elected as mayor.

 

So an enlightened, space-faring society would elect a minor when there are any number of adults around to take the job? No. Even dynastic monarchies in real-life history understood the dangers of leaving the throne to a child. In such cases, when a sitting king died early, the kingdom was often plunged into division and strife, implicit or overt, as rival factions of the nobility competed for the right to serve as regent, or to take over the succession entirely.

 

We're talking about relatively primitive societies here. Even they grasped a concept that seems to have eluded Lucas. Again, the problem isn't that you can't rationalize Lucas decision; the problem is that the decision is needlessly immersion-breaking. Why even make Padme a queen in the first place if her being a queen wasn't going to work later on? Better yet, why not write Episodes II and III so that her being a queen does make sense? Instead, we get more hand-wavey crap about how Naboo is so vastly different from anything on earth that no one can reasonably criticize their asinine system of government.

[Invictos]

Are you saying Palpatine didn't know about Shmi after a few years? And Shmi was freed like 2-3 years after EP I and got married. Yeah Palpatine didn't succeed on every thing. But he did succeed on a lot of things, are you saying he failed once so he couldn't prevent it?

 

No, I'm lampooning your premise that Palpatine's mere existence in the story line justifies any number of obvious plot holes. I'm also pointing out that no one took any action to free Shmi over a very long period of time, and that thus your characterizing Naboo as "immediately" indisposed is irrelevant.

 

Well, since Palpatine was able to handle it, it's highly possible that they didn't succeed. And nowhere even said Naboo people care about Anakin that much.

 

What does this even mean? Are you assuming that Palpatine did, in fact, "handle" Shmi's disposition even though we've clearly established that there's no evidence to suggest he did, or that the issue even came up?

 

It could be explained well especially with the EU materials, but you just refuse to accept it. I don't think you look that hard upon OT.

 

And I think you're an apologist who's too close to the materials to look at them critically. You keep coming up with in-universe arguments to address thematic or stylistic deficiencies in the writing. You kept defending Qui Gon on the basis of his likeability, for example; whether you like the character or not is irrelevant to the question of whether we needed the story to be written around him.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Invictos

[Velaran]

I'm watching EP 1 right now (Spike SW marathon). A slightly better appreciation for Jinn....

 

What?! Erm.... Do you know what channel spike is on in Fios?

[Slowpokeking]

So an enlightened, space-faring society would elect a minor when there are any number of adults around to take the job? No. Even dynastic monarchies in real-life history understood the dangers of leaving the throne to a child. In such cases, when a sitting king died early, the kingdom was often plunged into division and strife, implicit or overt, as rival factions of the nobility competed for the right to serve as regent, or to take over the succession entirely.

 

We're talking about relatively primitive societies here. Even they grasped a concept that seems to have eluded Lucas. Again, the problem isn't that you can't rationalize Lucas decision; the problem is that the decision is needlessly immersion-breaking. Why even make Padme a queen in the first place if her being a queen wasn't going to work later on? Better yet, why not write Episodes II and III so that her being a queen does make sense? Instead, we get more hand-wavey crap about how Naboo is so vastly different from anything on earth that no one can reasonably criticize their asinine system of government.

 

They don't know Padme(she was from some mountain village) that well, it's easy for Palpatine, a powerful manipulator to create a great image for her and make people believe she could lead them to a better situation. Also she was indeed very smart, and the king was pretty corrupted at that time. Well as for those who intended to control behind those leading figures, the younger they are, the better.

 

Ok now we are talking about why was she a queen in EP I and not later? Because in EP I they need to make Padme a important character, show her persona. As for EP II and III, because she got to start romance with Anakin, secretly. As a queen it would bring more difficulty for them to marry each other and got more to do with Naboo's politics, and it's not what the movie should spend too much time with. I also don't think people would like to see that.

[Invictos]

Ok now we are talking about why was she a queen in EP I and not later? Because in EP I they need to make Padme a important character, show her persona. As for EP II and III, because she got to start romance with Anakin, secretly. As a queen it would bring more difficulty for them to marry each other and got more to do with Naboo's politics, and it's not what the movie should spend too much time with. I also don't think people would like to see that.

 

See? Now we're getting somewhere. So you admit that the awkward transition of Padme from queen to citizen to senator was a transparent contortion of the writers to fit the plot to the story's needs. That's been the point all along.

[Slowpokeking]

No, I'm lampooning your premise that Palpatine's mere existence in the story line justifies any number of obvious plot holes. I'm also pointing out that no one took any action to free Shmi over a very long period of time, and that thus your characterizing Naboo as "immediately" indisposed is irrelevant.

 

What does this even mean? Are you assuming that Palpatine did, in fact, "handle" Shmi's disposition even though we've clearly established that there's no evidence to suggest he did, or that the issue even came up?

 

And I think you're an apologist who's too close to the materials to look at them critically. You keep coming up with in-universe arguments to address thematic or stylistic deficiencies in the writing. You kept defending Qui Gon on the basis of his likeability, for example; whether you like the character or not is irrelevant to the question of whether we needed the story to be written around him.

 

I already said about it, so it's highly logical that he kept an eye on his most important relative at that time this, including make sure she won't leave there, and later indeed used her death to corrupt Anakin. It's really not a plot hole because it could be explained perfectly with indirect evidence.

 

Now we are back to Qui Gon? Good.

 

I already explained earlier, he was a great Jedi and father figure in Anakin's eyes. His death left a scar on both Anakin and Obi Wan, which later made Anakin's downfall. Obi Wan was a good man overall but he could not replace Qui Gon Jinn's position in Anakin's heart. His existence and conflicts with the Jedi Order show the problem the old order and why they fell, it's one of the best parts in PT, revealing the old Jedi's problem.

 

Can Obi Wan do it well? You really believe Obi Wan's claim in OT? Then like I said, take a close look to what he did in OT.

[Slowpokeking]

See? Now we're getting somewhere. So you admit that the awkward transition of Padme from queen to citizen to senator was a transparent contortion of the writers to fit the plot to the story's needs. That's been the point all along.

 

She was elected as queen, the EU explained it very well, what's the problem?

[Invictos]

I already said about it, so it's highly logical that he kept an eye on his most important relative at that time this, including make sure she won't leave there, and later indeed used her death to corrupt Anakin. It's really not a plot hole because it could be explained perfectly with indirect evidence.

 

Except you haven't explained it, not even close. You continue to ignore the problem, which is that no one even tried to free her. Palpatine was literally given no opportunity to stop them from freeing her, and thus your entire premise is defeated before it even gets off the ground.

 

I already explained earlier, he was a great Jedi and father figure in Anakin's eyes. His death left a scar on both Anakin and Obi Wan, which later made Anakin's downfall. Obi Wan was a good man overall but he could not replace Qui Gon Jinn's position in Anakin's heart. His existence and conflicts with the Jedi Order show the problem the old order and why they fell, it's one of the best parts in PT, revealing the old Jedi's problem.

 

Case in point -- a perfect example of your retreating to Qui Gon's in-character virtues in a discussion about the plot and story structure. Episode I did not need to be, and almost certainly should not have been, a story about a previously unheard-of Jedi. Period. Could Qui Gon have featured in the PT? Sure. Should he have been the presumptive star of an entire third of a trilogy that was supposed to be about the development of Anakin Skywalker and his subsequent transformation into Darth Vader? Not just no, but hell no.

 

Can Obi Wan do it well? You really believe Obi Wan's claim in OT? Then like I said, take a close look to what he did in OT.

 

Irrelevant, as usual.

[Invictos]

She was elected as queen, the EU explained it very well, what's the problem?

 

Would you live in a country that would allow minors to run for the executive's office? What kind of idiots would design such a system of government? The whole idea goes far beyond even medieval-style ignorance; at least medieval people had an excuse for allowing young rulers to rise to power (the divine right of kings).

[Slowpokeking]

Except you haven't explained it, not even close. You continue to ignore the problem, which is that no one even tried to free her. Palpatine was literally given no opportunity to stop them from freeing her, and thus your entire premise is defeated before it even gets off the ground.

 

I already explained it well, motive, power and later connection, unless you think as a good movie they should talk, from what did this character eat and go to bathroom or otherwise it's a failure. Ok let me ask, how did the Emperor and Vader learn Luke's name and his real identity? It's not hard for him but it was never explained in the movie, is it s a plot hole? NO.

 

Case in point -- a perfect example of your retreating to Qui Gon's in-character virtues in a discussion about the plot and story structure. Episode I did not need to be, and almost certainly should not have been, a story about a previously unheard-of Jedi. Period. Could Qui Gon have featured in the PT? Sure. Should he have been the presumptive star of an entire third of a trilogy that was supposed to be about the development of Anakin Skywalker and his subsequent transformation into Darth Vader? Not just no, but hell no.

 

I don't see why it shouldn't have been some unheard of Jedi, as long as they characterize him well and make him got good connection with Anakin's development, and his later fall, along with the old Jedi Order. Especially when you can see Obi Wan was not good to play

Anakin's good mentor.

A really wise Jedi.

 

All your point is that he never showed up in OT so EP I should not have him, that is not a good reason.

 

If you think that's true, then EP V should not present the Empeor or Yoda, neither of them were heard in the movie of EP IV.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Slowpokeking

[Slowpokeking]

Would you live in a country that would allow minors to run for the executive's office? What kind of idiots would design such a system of government? The whole idea goes far beyond even medieval-style ignorance; at least medieval people had an excuse for allowing young rulers to rise to power (the divine right of kings).

 

We already got 18-20 years old guy became mayors, in modern US.

 

Also I mentioned a lot of times, during the election with the help of Palpatine, he and his supporters could make a very good image for her when the people were disappointed with their current corrupted king. As long as they could make people think she's better than Veruna and could bring change, then it's a deal.

 

And one last thing, Padme was really good as queen, at least in Naboo people's eyes.

[Invictos]

I already explained it well, motive, power and later connection, unless you think as a good movie they should talk, from what did this character eat and go to bathroom or otherwise it's a failure. Ok let me ask, how did the Emperor and Vader learn Luke's name and his real identity? It's not hard for him but it was never explained in the movie, is it s a plot hole? NO.

 

You're equating something that clearly happened -- Palplatine's learning Luke's identity -- with something that didn't happen, on screen or off. In the former case, it's reasonable to assume that the Emperor learned Luke's identity either through the Force or through the Empire's vast information-gathering resources (or both). Why? Because he obviously found out somehow. The movie flat out shows us that he knows.

 

On the other hand, you're assuming that because Shmi wasn't freed -- and in fact, because no one even mentioned the possibility of going back and freeing her -- that Palpatine must have prevented it. Except for the troublesome little detail that, you know, Watto eventually freed her on his own, years after the fact. It would have been plausible for the Jedi or the Naboo, or for freaking Palpatine himself, to try to free Shmi. It's not plausible that no one gave her a second thought. And Palpatine's status as a master manipulator does not constitute evidence that he had a sight-unseen role in keeping Shmi a slave for an arbitrary period of time.

 

I don't see why it shouldn't have been some unheard of Jedi, as long as they characterize him well and make him got good connection with Anakin's development, and his later fall, along with the old Jedi Order. Especially when you can see Obi Wan was not good to play

Anakin's good mentor.

A really wise Jedi.

 

Thanks for restating what I said and trying to twist it into a rebuttal. Here's a recap, and I'll even bold the parts you seem to have missed:

 

"Episode I did not need to be, and almost certainly should not have been, a story about a previously unheard-of Jedi. Period. Could Qui Gon have featured in the PT? Sure. Should he have been the presumptive star of an entire third of a trilogy that was supposed to be about the development of Anakin Skywalker and his subsequent transformation into Darth Vader? Not just no, but hell no. "

 

All your point is that he never showed up in OT so EP I should not have him, that is not a good reason.

 

Cute distortion.

[Invictos]

We already got 18-20 years old guy became mayors, in modern US.

 

Also I mentioned a lot of times, during the election with the help of Palpatine, he and his supporters could make a very good image for her when the people were disappointed with their current corrupted king. As long as they could make people think she's better than Veruna and could bring change, then it's a deal.

 

And one last thing, Padme was really good as queen, at least in Naboo people's eyes.

 

Does 18-20 fall after the age of majority? Why yes, yes it does. And while we're on the subject of age requirements in the United States, the Constitution explicitly disallows anyone under the age of 35 to run for the highest office in the land. There's a good reason for that. And hey, we Americans haven't even figured out inter-stellar travel yet!

 

Whether she's a good queen is irrelevant. She should never have been allowed to run for office in the first place, if Naboo has a sane system of government. I feel like a broken record.

[Slowpokeking]

You're equating something that clearly happened -- Palplatine's learning Luke's identity -- with something that didn't happen, on screen or off. In the former case, it's reasonable to assume that the Emperor learned Luke's identity either through the Force or through the Empire's vast information-gathering resources (or both). Why? Because he obviously found out somehow. The movie flat out shows us that he knows.

 

On the other hand, you're assuming that because Shmi wasn't freed -- and in fact, because no one even mentioned the possibility of going back and freeing her -- that Palpatine must have prevented it. Except for the troublesome little detail that, you know, Watto eventually freed her on his own, years after the fact. It would have been plausible for the Jedi or the Naboo, or for freaking Palpatine himself, to try to free Shmi. It's not plausible that no one gave her a second thought. And Palpatine's status as a master manipulator does not constitute evidence that he had a sight-unseen role in keeping Shmi a slave for an arbitrary period of time.

 

So now you can assume these things, but you didn't do it when facing the case. If you want examples of something didn't happen, why Vader and the Emperor never went to Owen's home to get Luke?

 

The Jedi never care about this much. As for Naboo it was already explained. Palpatine was taking Anakin as very important figure and later used his mother's death to corrupt him, it's actually not logical if he didn't keep an eye on his most important relative.

 

 

Thanks for restating what I said and trying to twist it into a rebuttal. Here's a recap, and I'll even bold the parts you seem to have missed:

 

"Episode I did not need to be, and almost certainly should not have been, a story about a previously unheard-of Jedi. Period. Could Qui Gon have featured in the PT? Sure. Should he have been the presumptive star of an entire third of a trilogy that was supposed to be about the development of Anakin Skywalker and his subsequent transformation into Darth Vader? Not just no, but hell no. "

.

 

Well like I said clearly, as long as they could make a good characterization of him, link him well with Anakin and became a important factor which later let him become Darth Vader, it's perfectly good.

 

Let me ask you.

 

Could the Emperor have featured in the OT?

Should he have been the NO 1 bad guy, the ruthless dictator and who caused all the tragedy of Vader? Actually it retconned some of EP IV(the novel)'s story.

 

Now tell me is it a bad idea for the OT to present the Emperor?

Edited May 20, 2012 by Slowpokeking

[Darth_Solrac]

What?! Erm.... Do you know what channel spike is on in Fios?

 

No sorry.

[Slowpokeking]

Does 18-20 fall after the age of majority? Why yes, yes it does. And while we're on the subject of age requirements in the United States, the Constitution explicitly disallows anyone under the age of 35 to run for the highest office in the land. There's a good reason for that. And hey, we Americans haven't even figured out inter-stellar travel yet!

 

Whether she's a good queen is irrelevant. She should never have been allowed to run for office in the first place, if Naboo has a sane system of government. I feel like a broken record.

 

So what? Naboo is not US. They didn't have such law against that. And unlike real world, we saw a girl in SW's world could handle it well, even in a crisis. If we want to explain, before they had election, there were similar figure, young but able to rule the nation well, so this gave them some confidence, along with Palpatine's help and Veruna's corruption, we got Padme.

[Invictos]

So now you can assume these things, but you didn't do it when facing the case. If you want examples of something didn't happen, why Vader and the Emperor never went to Owen's home to get Luke?

 

The Jedi never care about this much. As for Naboo it was already explained. Palpatine was taking Anakin as very important figure and later used his mother's death to corrupt him, it's actually not logical if he didn't keep an eye on his most important relative.

 

Shmi's importance undermines your argument; everyone forgets about her until she shows up again, a decade later, having been not only freed by Watto, but having married and having been kidnapped by Sand People. That's a lot of crap to happen to the poor woman without the rest of the universe noticing, despite that she's the supposed Chosen One's mother.

 

Also, thanks for pointing out another inconsistency -- Vader's never going back to Tatooine in search of Luke.

 

Well like I said clearly, as long as they could make a good characterization of him, link him well with Anakin and became a important factor which later let him become Darth Vader, it's perfectly good.

 

You are missing the point. Again. Episode I robs Anakin of agency. He's too young to understand what's going on, and too young to move as a character. From a narrative perspective, it's a waste of screen time to put Anakin in the back seat for the entire duration of the first prequel. Unsurprisingly, that curious narrative decision comes back to bite Lucas in Episode III; Anakin's fall seems every bit as abrupt and stilted as his romance with Padme was in Episode II (another aspect of the story that could have been done better if there were more screen time).

 

So to recap for the last time: It's ok that Qui Gon is a new character. It's even ok that he has a prominent role in the story. It's not okay that the entire first movie is devoted to Qui Gon as protagonist. The difference between the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy is that the originals were made piecemeal. When Lucas shot Episode IV, he had no reasonable expectation that he'd be able to continue the story, so he made a fun stand-alone romp. By the time Episode V rolled around, Lucas was in a much more stable position to develop the story arc. (He also had lots of help with the writing and the direction of Empire. It's no coincidence that Empire is widely considered the best of the six Star Wars movies.)

 

The prequels, by contrast, were designed from the ground up to be a trilogy. Everyone, including the public, knew that the story was to be Anakin's. But somewhere along the way, Lucas lost the plot; he sat down to write Episode I and ended up with a rambling, CGI-infested mess that almost went out of its way to ignore the main subject of his trilogy. There's no excuse for that.

 

To the extent that the OT had inconsistencies, they're much more justifiable than the inconsistencies in the prequels.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Invictos

[Invictos]

So what? Naboo is not US. They didn't have such law against that. And unlike real world, we saw a girl in SW's world could handle it well, even in a crisis. If we want to explain, before they had election, there were similar figure, young but able to rule the nation well, so this gave them some confidence, along with Palpatine's help and Veruna's corruption, we got Padme.

 

You can't have it both ways. Either Palpatine chose her because she would be easy to manipulate, or she was an excellent ruler in time of crisis. In fact, there is no evidence that Padme is an excellent ruler in Episode I. Her most significant decision as ruler isn't her decision at all; she does Palpatine's bidding and gets Chancellor Velorin (sp?) ousted.

 

Palpatine got exactly what he wanted out of her. It was only through a combination of dumb luck and lots and lots of good advice and aid (from the Jedi, from the Gungans, the alliance with which she wouldn't have even imagined if it weren't for the Jedi introducing her to JarJar) that Padme oversaw the end of the siege of Naboo.

 

Also, bonus points for invoking a double standard: It's ok for you to mention the US when you feel it bolsters your point, but suddenly when I use your own example to rebut your argument, I'm off topic.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Invictos