Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Did the Emperor show his real face after the Mace fight or did it newly turn withered after the redirected Force lightning. I tried looking up the case to no avail. Anyone know? Cause i heard something about a human "mask" Palpatine had on as senator/ chancellor and supreme chancellor and that his true face was a veil for the withered Force- abused image.

Thanks guys.

The website pretty much says the Lightning did it...

... but really, there is no definitive answer to this one.

its the force lightning

great, debate #345,092 on "was palpatine disfigured or unmasked"
never gets old does it?

actually yeah it does PVS... it gets very old.... much like Palpatine's wrinkled old disfigured face...

oh, no no no, this is just the epitome of good debate.
we can all just give a one sentence answer on what the cause was,
based on pure speculation. then we can have people throw in the EU garbage dressed up as evidence. we can once agaon go on till page 200 with no more information gained than page one...fun for the whole family

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The website pretty much says the Lightning did it...



So did George I think.

Well, if he did, then that's that! I don't recall, though.

Yep it was either the Vanity Fair interview or the Entertainment Weekly one I think.

the darkside of the force was changing him into his true self (EVIL)

I'm going to wait for the commentary on the DVD for a definitive answer, but I have some theories. It could be the use of the lighting - heavy use of the dark side is supposed to corrupt you physically - yet Count Dooku could use it and there was no change in his features. Sidious' former apprentice, Darth Maul, had a nightmarish face but looked healthy; the dark side hadn't changed him either.
I would guess that it was Palpatine's true face, as the most powerful Sith Lord in a millenium, the one who finally executed the plan of revenge on the Jedi. He successfully kept it hidden, though; just like he hid any connection to the force in full view of the Jedi Council, who knew and dealt with him for many years, but never suspected him. Releasing the lighting in close against Mace, his fairer form was finally dropped. It likely took effort to keep it up. Once Anakin was pulled to his side, and Order 66 was given, there was no reason to disguise himself any more.

Just use your Brain fools,

We have seen Sidious loads of times in his Palpatine Face with his Cape on and hood up, when hes talking to Maul, Gunray, Dooku and Grevious, and he doesnt change is so called old True form face when hes talking to them does he?

Hes just a Sith lord whos a Human whos face got melted by lighting

agreed

Wow, this has never been done before...

Lightning doesn't melt people.

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
Wow, this has never been done before...




I was thinking the same thing but I wasnt gonna point it out first.

I think its wut ever starwars.com says


not wikapeida

Luke was fried a lot longer than Palpatine, and he was fresh as a daisy afterward. Well, maybe his teeth tingled.

Maybe it's like positive and negative lightning, so that if you shoot dark side lightning, and it whips back at you, it's like pushing a magnet so that the poles switch and it locks on you even worse, making you melt! Or maybe it's like choking on your own vomit, which is worse than choking on someone elses vomit!

i thought this was obvious, do you guys need a before and after pic. i mean the deformation was done in maybe i dont know, 20 seconds or so.

Should we even bother answering? I mean, this question is just one out of a million that don't matter and have been discussed countless times. This is why we have a search button, people.

BUT, since you asked, I may as well add my two cents and say his face was fried. But, in the future, kindly use the search button to avoid a) being flamed for repeating questions and b) ending up with numerous pointless threads like those you have made already.

This public service announcement has been brought to you by the laughing smiley hysterical.

Originally posted by ArthasKnight
Should we even bother answering? I mean, this question is just one out of a million that don't matter and have been discussed countless times. This is why we have a search button, people.

BUT, since you asked, I may as well add my two cents and say his face was fried. But, in the future, kindly use the search button to avoid a) being flamed for repeating questions and b) ending up with numerous pointless threads like those you have made already.

This public service announcement has been brought to you by the laughing smiley hysterical.

Thank you for your.."wise" judgement.

Your opinion was welcomed.

I will consider considering what you have offered.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Thank you for your.."wise" judgement.

Your opinion was welcomed.

I will consider considering what you have offered.

I would recommend it, seeing as how your other failures at doing so have resulted in childish arguments and the closing of your threads.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=343761&perpage=20&highlight=&pagenumber=1

BTW, it should be "Emperor's" not "Emperors'"...

Originally posted by ArthasKnight
I would recommend it, seeing as how your other failures at doing so have resulted in childish arguments and the closing of your threads.

Thank you for your.."wise" judgement.

Your opinion was welcomed.

I will consider considering what you have offered.

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
BTW, it should be "Emperor's" not "Emperors'"...

I'll have to say that you're wrong. "Emperor's = Emperor is"

If so, this would assimilate "The Emperor is appearance"...etc."

And that sounds hardly sensible. But thanks for the attempted punctuation lesson, though. It shows mindfulness.

Sorry, FOTN, but DD was right. "Emperor's" does NOT mean 'Emperor is', it's the singular possessive- the appearance of the Emperor.

It being my job to teach this stuff, I consider it a public service to make that clear.

However, I'd welcome more on topic comments, if any more can be found, rather than more acrimony.

I think of palpatine as a kind of shape-shifter. I think he purposefully changed during the mace windu battle to trick anakin into thinking that windu was disfiguring him.

He then used his real face in the senate to decieve the masses into thinking the jedi had done that to him, thus making it easier to pass his decree against them.

Palpatine's wrinkled mug is a metaphor.

It looked fine in TPM

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I'll have to say that you're wrong. "Emperor's = Emperor is"

If so, this would assimilate "The Emperor is appearance"...etc."

And that sounds hardly sensible. But thanks for the attempted punctuation lesson, though. It shows mindfulness. No. As Ush pointed out, "Emperor's" does not only mean "Emperor is"... in this context it means the appearance belongs to the Emperor. "Emperors'" would imply the appearance belonged to more than one Emperor, and considering there is only one Emperor in ROTS, I'm sure you can see how little sense that makes.

Originally posted by zombieman
I think of palpatine as a kind of shape-shifter. I think he purposefully changed during the mace windu battle to trick anakin into thinking that windu was disfiguring him.

He then used his real face in the senate to decieve the masses into thinking the jedi had done that to him, thus making it easier to pass his decree against them. clap yes

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
No. As Ush pointed out, "Emperor's" does not only mean "Emperor is"... in this context it means the appearance belongs to the Emperor. "Emperors'" would imply the appearance belonged to more than one Emperor, and considering there is only one Emperor in ROTS, I'm sure you can see how little sense that makes.

clap yes

How little sense what you just said made? Or...

I thought "Emperors" meant many Emperors. So " Emperors' " doesn't exist? Just asking..

I digress. back to the subject

The subject...the subject...(coughs)...(ahem)..................Plastic Palps. Patent pending.

If there were two Emperors and you were talking about their collective appearance it would be Emperors'. But because we are only talking about one Emperor, it is Emperor's.

I'd get back to the subject, but frankly I find discussing this much more appealing than repeating something that's already been said a thousand times...

985 by my count.

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do


I'd get back to the subject, but frankly I find discussing this much more appealing than repeating something that's already been said a thousand times...

Nah, I don't.

Anythings better than a grammar lesson.

Rewatching Ep. 1 would be better, even.

Wouldn't you think so?

way to rewrite the laws of english grammar

i are impressed

Yeah?! Well He are Baboon!

I don't know.....

Palps even says in the movie, "The attempt on my life has left me scarred and deformed." That's all the evidence you need right there.

Originally posted by Sith Master X
Palps even says in the movie, "The attempt on my life has left me scarred and deformed." That's all the evidence you need right there.

But with that I could ask, did the Emperor just say what the Senate wanted or should hear?

After all, Palpatine did say in his speech that "the Jedi "Plot" has been foiled." And a "Plot" is a secret plan to accomplish a hostile or illegal purpose. Like a scheme.

Were the Jedi "Plotting" as Palpatine had told the Senators during his Imperial Declaration speech? No.

So who knows what else, in his speech, was a lie as well.

Just my opinion.

Has GL actually stated the truth about Palpatine's appearance?

I'm pretty sure in the visual dictionary it says that Sidious's face was deformed by the duel with Mace. I'd check one of the other threads if you really wanna know, it might be in one of those.

'Cause if GL says it was deformed in the Mace battle, then it was.

Nah.

For God's sake, it doesn't matter what Lucas might say. Lightning doesn't melt peoples' faces, especially in a way that is PERFECTLY SYMETRICAL. Palpatine's appearance was due to his true age, I can't believe this is being debated.

Logic + Star Wars are very poor bedfellows, DarkAge.

If GL says it, it is so, no matter what.

Originally posted by DarkAge
For God's sake, it doesn't matter what Lucas might say. Lightning doesn't melt peoples' faces, especially in a way that is PERFECTLY SYMETRICAL. Palpatine's appearance was due to his true age, I can't believe this is being debated. Yeah, the Force doesn't really work either ya know.

As narcissistic as it may sound, I don't give a rats arse what Georgie says, I'm never going to believe the lightning caused Palpatine's deformation.

So you don't go by what Georgie boy says? Then why do watch the movies?

Err... because I enjoy them...

I don't see what my appreciation of the films has to do with George's intentions. Film is interperative. Things mean different things to different people. If something is not spelled out clearly on the screen then it is up to the veiwer to decide what is happening... and here it is not spelled out.

I like the idea that Palpatine is just so evil his appearance takes that form. That idea adds to my appreciation of the films. And I like to like these films...

Well that's just your own opinion and interpratation. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but when it comes to a fictional universe with the popularity that SW has, then whatever the creator says, goes.

If you fing the melting skin too bizarre, try having a galaxy full of aliens, war, and the Force.

Originally posted by Tangible God
...when it comes to a fictional universe with the popularity that SW has, then whatever the creator says, goes.
Not to me, it doesn't.

Then you preach wonders of your own intellect.

No. I just give my opinion... and say that anyone who doesn't agree with me is a complete moron.

Yes, I am sorry, DD- you can believe the sky is pink if you wish, that is your right. But it is not pink, and that's a fact. And likewise, what GL says about his own creation is also a fact, and any contrary opinion you hold is without value.

For the sake of debates on such a public forum as this I will respect that that is the case and that whatever Master Lucas says is absolute canon.

But I will still never believe it.

From comingsoon.net:

Q: How difficult was it to go from the sublime evil that you play in the first half of the film to a carbon copy of your performance twenty years ago?

McDiarmid: Yes, well it's very interesting. I've said this a few times, but there was a note George gave, not really as a note, we were just talking. And he said this quite casually. He said, "You should think of your eyes, Ian's eyes, Palpatine's eye as his. Sidious' contact lenses. In other words, my face was his mask." Which is an extremely interesting thing to say to an actor. And I knew that in Episode III, as you all did really, that this face would have to burst through my own mask. So, in a sense, I couldn't wait. And I also knew that they would mix it brilliantly - Rob and others - from one face into another. And it would be my sort of Dr. Jekyll Mr., Hyde moment, Dorian Grey moment, when outer good is subverted by inner evil. So I was really looking forward to it and at the moment when Palpatine's voice turns to - oh, you almost got an excerpt! - from one to the other, from lightish grey to dark black. So it was a moment I was really looking forward to and one that I embraced. An when we were filming it, George got closer and closer and closer with that camera-he was practically at my nose for the final shot! So I knew it was a moment I had to do my best to get right.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=11505

"my face was his mask", "this face would have to burst through my own mask", "outer good is subverted by inner evil".

There ya have it... from George to Ian to us.

But, of course it wont end here... Bring on the hearsay objections!..

Did you ever think they might be saying that metaphorcally?

Or that they could be talking about a mask that Ian McDiarmid, the actor, might have had to wear, while he was acting.

Of course it's metaphorical... Sidious is literally wearing a mask now is he? The whole situation is metaphorical... outer good being subverted by inner evil. He was using that form to mask his true appearance... I really don't see how that could mean anything else.

Howcome I completely accepted Ian McDiarmid as Sidious, he doesn't look anything like the original, I don't even care! He is killer cool..
Wasn't the original Palpatine played by an old woman with an enormous anount of make-up btw? (not kidding here)

But I didn't like his transformation, he was much cooler fighting when he was a normal human.

The transformation was done horribly. I was cringing right throughout that scene. Just awful.

Yes, Palpatine was played by a woman in ESB, but Ian played him in ROTJ... and the ESB "monkey-woman" was replaced with Ian for the DVD.

And that Sidious mask did look pretty bad in some shots... but it was alright. It does kinda look like the Emperor in ROTJ... But hey 20 years can do a lot to your appearance. Unless you're Yoda...

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
The transformation was done horribly. I was cringing right throughout that scene. Just awful.

Yes, Palpatine was played by a woman in ESB, but Ian played him in ROTJ... and the ESB "monkey-woman" was replaced with Ian for the DVD.

And that Sidious mask did look pretty bad in some shots... but it was alright. It does kinda look like the Emperor in ROTJ... But hey 20 years can do a lot to your appearance. Unless you're Yoda...
Arghh.. I'm oldschool.. I never want to watch these new revisions of Lucas, replacing and adding useless new scenes.. It already makes me sick hearing about Hayden Christensen as Vaders ghost, not that I hate the actor but why the hell would Vader become young and handsome again when dead and Obi not, it's stupid AARRGGH!! AARRGHH!!!!
And to be original: Arrrr...

Anakin looks like his younger self (according to Lucas) because he appears as he did the last time he was Anakin. He was able to retain his persona/appearance as Anakin. Realistically, he should look older (like he does sans Vader helmet, only un-scarred), but Lucas must have wanted to show that the "good man" that was Luke & Leia's father had returned.
Going back to Palpatine's appearance; there is a post that has a link to the interview with Ian McDiarmid in which he discusses Sidious' appearance. He also mentions that Sidious is old and evil. I tried to post the link, but I am not "well-known" enough for the post to go through with a link attached to my posts. Sorry. I don't have much time to frequent the message boards.
[By the way, emperor's is the correct way to show possession. I am an English teacher; apostrophes are used when showing possession; an extra "s" is used only when needed.

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
Of course it's metaphorical... Sidious is literally wearing a mask now is he? The whole situation is metaphorical... outer good being subverted by inner evil. He was using that form to mask his true appearance... I really don't see how that could mean anything else. Metaphorcal as in, he's wearing his "mask" of being the good guy chancellor. And when he takes off that "mask," he's the evil Sidious.

It's possible. Not likely though, IMO. When I read it it was pretty clear he meant the form of his face... And Ian has said before that the wrinkled face is Sidious's true face... in an insider magazine I think.

Honestly, I don't really care anymore. I'm so over it.

Mask on actor to make him look different, metaphorical mask on character to make him seem nice.

Whaeva.

I don't know, but the title of this thread just cracks me up:
"long term Dark Side usage." lol.

lol lol teehee teehee

I can imagine an FDA warning: Long Term usage of the Dark Side may cause whitening and wrinking of the skin and face disfigurement. Do not take more than the recommended dose. Seek a physician's help immediately if you suffer any severe side-effects.