[J m HofMarN]

I was just thinking about this today when I was considering implanting a cranial bomb in Sime's head. Well, it suddenly occured that this must be a pretty unpleasant procedure. I mean, I don't see that many people on Tatooine wasting anesthesia on their....... people who do......... whatever it is that Shmi did?

Also, living with a fugging explosive device in your head has got to be troubling. Why was this not considered? Anakin and Shmi both have C4 in their brainpan, but they're both happy as clams. Anakin even gleefully describes the consequences of it in an expository scene.

This, to me, says that this is not something that was a part of the original plot or of Anakin or Shmi's character development, or of SW literature beforehand. Rather, it was tacked on at the last moment as a plot device to keep the Jedi from just carting Anakin off and, without sufficient time to think it through, the emotional consequences of Anakin having a bomb in his head were never considered.

Much like ANY emotional consequences in the PT.

Here's how I think it went:

Guy: So, the Jedi arrrive on Tattooine and grab Anakin up, and we can get off that planet and explore somewhere el.......

Lucas: No, I do not think so Admiral. We need to spend some time on Tattooine, maybe have a high speed chase.

Guy: I'm not exactly an admiral, and I'm not sure I know how we can keep two Jedi from taking one small and very portable child wherever they damn well please.

Lucas: For your sake Admiral, I hope not. McCallum is not as forgiving as I am, and he wants more opportunities for JarJar to step in poodoo.

Guy: Alright Mr. smartguy, give me a plausible reason why they get stuck there.

Lucas: Ok, Tattooine has very strict adoption laws.

Guy: Lightsabers

Lucas: He has lice, they have to fix it due to space quarantine.

Guy: Lightsabers

Lucas: Ouch... Ok ok, his teacher at slave school says he cant miss any more days or he'll fail.

Guy: The Force.

Lucas: He's a slave, and his owner won't part with him.

Guy: The Force.

Lucas: His owner is force proof.

Guy: You motherfucker. Lightsabers!

Lucas: Ok, he has a bomb in his head that will explode if he leaves.

Guy: God damn it.

Am I wrong here? Is there some reference to this practice in EU literature?

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 24 September 2008 - 05:09 AM

[Dorothy]

I think my question would be, did they remove it when they left Tatooine. If not, why was there not a quest for the detonator once Annie became Vader. I can see it now...

[J m HofMarN]

the fact that it was never mentioned afterwards gives credence to my theory that it was pulled out of Lucas' ass and never thought through.

[Dr Lecter]

It was just an excuse to make a video game pod racer tie-in.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Hey, I liked that game.

Didn't like anything else, but that was one of my favorite games.

[civilian_number_two]

Once more, they should have sold Amidala's space ship. They could have used the money to buy Anikin, his mother, a busload of young whores, and passage for all of them on board any of a number of spaceships docked in the port.

The whole movie was poorly thought through. But yeah, bimbs in the heads is the dumbest thing ever, and not even unique. I remember a movie about a futuristic prison that used that device. It had that Lambert guy from Highlander. It was a bit less good than Phantom Menace.

[Gobbler]

I would have liked a removal scene like in Total Recall, that stuff was gold, if only for the exp​ression on his face.

[Mr Pye]

I remember a movie about a futuristic prison that used that device. It had that Lambert guy from Highlander.

I recall they had something called intestinators. Sounds nasty enough.


Anyway, about TPM. I don't know what Lucas actually had in mind when introducing the concept of slaves. If it was about people toiling and sweating under force, or if it was about people owning each other as commodities. Neither side of the concept really seemed expanded upon, which makes me suspect that 'slaves' was just something that Lucas threw into his porridge along with some other terms that he thought might stir the imagination of children, such as queen (an elected one at that) and boss, and I think even angels were mentioned at one point.

As for the explosive implants? I don't know. The movie never seemed to bother making any distincition between slaves and the non slave population of Tatooine, and for all we know they all had chips in their brains. So with the explosive chips it is like with the slaves and with the queen and more, they are there but not for any apparent purpose. And not to tell a story.

Besides if there is any point at all in owning slaves the last thing you want to do is blow them up.

This post has been edited by Mr Pye: 08 October 2008 - 12:39 PM

[J m HofMarN]

That last bit's a goddamn good point. On Tatooine where humans seem to be not as plentiful as other planets, a human slave has to be expensive to purchase. Why would they have explosive implants rather than readily available tracking implants which allow one to recapture them at their leisure?

In light of the statements about the entire slavery issue though: It's hard to tell whether bombs were added as a stopgap to keep the plot on Tatooine, or if they actually wanted to expand on the concept but were just utterly inept.

And making Amidala a queen was because Lucas somehow remembered that Leia was a princess, though I have precisely no idea how this works. I always figured Leia became a princess by being adopted into royalty. Also, there was never a vote on whether Leia was princess. Are queen's elected, but princesses not? Why was Vader too stupid to notice that there's a little girl running around who's an elected princess? Could princess Leia take the throne of Naboo? Are votes now hereditary? Answer without mentioning George Bush!

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 08 October 2008 - 01:48 PM

[Gobbler]

You're talking about two different "royal" families on two different planets with two different political systems here. Amy was done playing queen by the time of Leia's birth. Leia herself was adopted by Senator Bail Organa, who also acted his part in a hereditary constitutional monarchy on his planet Alderaan (you know, the one with no weapons and all, who would (or could) have objected to naming an adopted child the new princess?).

And yes, that whole slave thing was pretty weird. I mean, look at how freely Shmi could move around, she even came to see the bloody pod race. Makes you wonder what kind of slave she was, having such privileges.

This post has been edited by Gobbler: 08 October 2008 - 02:38 PM

[Vesuvius]

Well one good thing about having bombs in your slaves head, if you're wounded and can't get your slave back from some human-stealing-Tusken Raiders, just blow them all up!

Other tribes of sandpeople will learn quickly, it's not worth the hassle to steal a human again, that b*tch may just be a suicide bomber.

(Why wasn't this done in EP II?)

[Gobbler]

Hmm, yeah, using those bombs for more practical things is actually a nice idea... Sarlacc hunting, anyone?

[Chefelf]

Once more, they should have sold Amidala's space ship. They could have used the money to buy Anikin, his mother, a busload of young whores, and passage for all of them on board any of a number of spaceships docked in the port.

But why do that when you can just forget about her completely then return in ten years when you remember that she's still a slave and you've been surrounded by powerful Jedi for the last decade?

[J m HofMarN]

Chef, I believe you've forgotten the extensive list of things the Jedi Code prohibits Jedi from doing. This includes:

Fighting a war for you
Freeing slaves
Affecting Watto's head
Falling in love
Getting married

and probably some other stuff too. It's all in the fine print that comes after "There is no death, there is The Force"

[Helena]

Anyway, about TPM. I don't know what Lucas actually had in mind when introducing the concept of slaves. If it was about people toiling and sweating under force, or if it was about people owning each other as commodities. Neither side of the concept really seemed expanded upon, which makes me suspect that 'slaves' was just something that Lucas threw into his porridge along with some other terms that he thought might stir the imagination of children, such as queen (an elected one at that) and boss, and I think even angels were mentioned at one point.

I agree with this. I think Lucas just believed that making Anakin and his mother slaves would automatically make the audience feel sorry for them, despite the fact that they live comfortably (as far as we can see) and don't appear to be badly treated. Anakin is well-fed, clothed, educated and apparently has plenty of free time to pursue hobbies and muck around with his friends, just like any normal kid. Okay, so he can't leave town without Watto's permission - is that really likely to be a big issue for a frickin' nine-year-old? Seems to me that he has a much easier and happier childhood than many kids in real life, despite being a slave.

And yes, tracking devices to catch runaway slaves would make a lot more sense than blowing them up. Which is probably why Lucas didn't think of it.