Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

No pod is worth two slaves, so one pod is worth 1 slave, so why not free Shmi ?

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > STAR WARS Discussion
No pod is worth two slaves, so one pod is worth 1 slave, so why not free Shmi ?

PizzaRollDeluxe's Avatar


PizzaRollDeluxe
07.13.2012 , 05:41 AM | #11
Well, probably just another Lucas plot hole but I can provide an out for him, at least one that is better than the parsec finagle.

You've got to look at this in terms of a gamble and not a trade. He is prepared to gamble 1 slave against the pod because he thinks the chances of Anakin winning are low so it is likely he will win the pod. He is not prepared to gamble 2 slaves against the pod because, although he thinks the chance is low, he is not willing to risk losing 2 slaves.

In other words, just because he is prepared to risk betting a slave against a pod doesn't mean that he would be prepared to exchange a slave for a pod.

Eillack's Avatar


Eillack
07.13.2012 , 02:28 PM | #12
Quote: Originally Posted by PizzaRollDeluxe View Post
Well, probably just another Lucas plot hole but I can provide an out for him, at least one that is better than the parsec finagle.

You've got to look at this in terms of a gamble and not a trade. He is prepared to gamble 1 slave against the pod because he thinks the chances of Anakin winning are low so it is likely he will win the pod. He is not prepared to gamble 2 slaves against the pod because, although he thinks the chance is low, he is not willing to risk losing 2 slaves.

In other words, just because he is prepared to risk betting a slave against a pod doesn't mean that he would be prepared to exchange a slave for a pod.
Plot hole?

No, it wasn't a plot hole haha. It's simply just a slave master not wanted to risk all his slaves on a gamble. It was pure logic.
With unity, comes strength...with strength, comes power...with power...comes obedience.....
CE Owner '09 Account
Quote: Originally Posted by BruceMaclean View Post
..I think it's ultimately our fault for not communicating enough.

PizzaRollDeluxe's Avatar


PizzaRollDeluxe
07.14.2012 , 03:10 AM | #13
Quote: Originally Posted by Eillack View Post
Plot hole?

No, it wasn't a plot hole haha. It's simply just a slave master not wanted to risk all his slaves on a gamble. It was pure logic.
It has nothing to do with logic. The reason why they don't free Shmi is because it wouldn't serve the plot. You don't go on adventures with your mother. So Lucas writes this whole convoluted gambling scenario so as to separate Anakin from Shmi. Once Anakin and Shmi are separated the fact that Shmi is still a slave isn't really that important to the plot so gets forgotten. The implied equality between the value of a pod and the value of a slave is also forgotten. It is a plot hole but not a particularly big one and one that can be easily rationalised. I'm sure that in a consistent Star Wars universe once the Phantom Menace crisis was over Anakin would have had enough influence to bargain for Shmi's release. The fact that he doesn't suggests that Shmi's slavery isn't actually all that important to Lucas.

Queen_Ultima's Avatar


Queen_Ultima
07.14.2012 , 10:00 AM | #14
Quote: Originally Posted by PizzaRollDeluxe View Post
I'm sure that in a consistent Star Wars universe once the Phantom Menace crisis was over Anakin would have had enough influence to bargain for Shmi's release. The fact that he doesn't suggests that Shmi's slavery isn't actually all that important to Lucas.
Aren't Jedi trained to forget about their families, or at least to not allow them to influence their actions? It seems in AotC that Anakin jumped at the chance to get back to Tatooine to see her, away from the prying eyes of the Jedi and under cover of "Oh, keeping Padmé safe here on Naboo...... Yep".

EDIT: (Oh, and about my sig, it's more in the general gist of the prequels was nice, but the actual written dialogue, plot and actions were non-sensical until midway through AotC)

I don't know for sure, but the sequels seemed to me to have been written (at least first drafts) at the same time, hence why TPM has plotholes that set up for AotC and RotS, and why some of the dialogue seems rushed. Not a good excuse but it seems to make sense for me.
Bridget for Sith Empress!

PizzaRollDeluxe's Avatar


PizzaRollDeluxe
07.14.2012 , 11:23 AM | #15
Sure, Jedi are meant to minimise emotional attachments but Anakin and his mother got Padme off of Tatooine and Anakin played a key part in the liberation of an entire world. I'm sure he could concentrate a bit better at his studies if he knew that his mother wasn't a slave any more. At the very least, Padme seems like a nice girl. Seems strange that she never got around to thinking, "You know it might be nice to do something for that woman who allowed her son to risk his life to help us and who is still being held in slavery."

Intarabus's Avatar


Intarabus
07.14.2012 , 04:55 PM | #16
Quote: Originally Posted by coltess View Post
Ok, So Watto said no pod is worth two slaves, so Qui-Gon gambled the pod for Anakin and won. Well, that means Qui-Gon still owned Anakin's pod, we see this later when Anakin tells Shmi they sold it. Here is what I don't get, Qui-Gon got the parts they needed for free, so what happened to the money from the pod? Lining the Jedi's pockets? Why didn't he use it to free Shmi?
I always thought it was one of the weakest points of Phantom Menace that Shmi had to stay slave. Like the Jedi order could not buy off a slave from a junk merchnat.

BradTheImpaler's Avatar


BradTheImpaler
07.15.2012 , 12:58 AM | #17
"The Republic doesn't exist out here. We must survive on our own."-Shmi Skywalker.
"I didn't exactly come here to free slaves."-Qui-Gon Jinn

So in addition to the valid points already made about Watto being a sore loser and such, there are political reasons for the Jedi to not get involved, much less to free one of many slaves. This would be especially true after TPM. With the rumblings of the Separatist crisis, I can imagine the Republic/Jedi would not want to tick off the Hutts. Anakin was lost by Watto betting on the podraces, so that wouldn't cause problems with what passed for the local government. Shmi, though, was still a slave, and Watto could not be forced to sell her. The Jedi/Republic don't exactly have a history of roaming the galaxy to stop injustice wherever it exists anyway, because they consider this reckless...heck, there's probably just as bad even in parts of the Coruscant underlevels alone. So really it all comes down to an isolationist attitude, along with the Jedi teaching against powerful emotional entanglements.
In the Imperial Army, it takes more courage to retreat than to advance.

Hitomo_x's Avatar


Hitomo_x
07.16.2012 , 02:44 AM | #18
http://youtu.be/_o1eTJhFP9k?t=42m59s

all your questions answered ... ^^