The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
😐

I think you and I were on the wrong page regarding the term 'weakness'. Palpatine's gambit was an act of political and psychological manipulation; that sort of work is contingent upon, [b]requires, certain actions, decisions, and reactions of all involved parties. The Joker's plan to corrupt Harvey Dent in the much lauded The Dark Knight required certain actions to take place outside of the Joker's control; the same goes for Vader's gambit in The Empire Strikes Back; for Tarkin's gambit in A New Hope; for Palpatine's in Return of the Jedi; for every single villain whoever dared to plot in the history of cinema and real life.

I don't know Palpatine's contingency plans for these things, just like I don't know the contingency plans for most movie villains out there.

When I said weakness, I meant in terms of the story. What decisions were made that were illogical, defied reason, etc. [/B]

But you seem to think that just because Palpatine "had a plan" that... well, what? It could have unraveled at any time. His entire plan hinged on a lot--a lot of variables that could have unfolded and buried him at a moment's notice. The fact that the entire progression of the prequels rested solely on such ridiculous schemes is a sign of a larger problem: bad writing.

Tarkin ran a major risk. A major risk. Vader's gambit (I assume luring Luke to Cloud City?) wasn't much of a risk. Revealing to Luke the truth wasn't really either. It didn't have the effect he wanted--and I like that. Shows that he can miscalculate. Unlike Palpatine, who must have, like RLM said, been controlling everyone's mind since the first movie. That or they're all really stupid.

And I like that Tarkin actually acknowledged it was a risk. He sounded and looked concerned about it. He was supremely confident in victory, and was willing to make a big gamble to ensure a swift end--but he still knew he was putting everything on the line to do so. Palpatine seemed to take dozens of chances. Some of them seemed to appear out of nowhere. And for him, victory couldn't have been so certain. Not with so many countless variables. Not over the course of 13 years. But they all went off without a hitch. But he never voices doubt, or worry. There's nothing at all to indicate that years of scheming and plotting are at stake, and that every single detail is important. It's like he knows it's all going to go well. By the third movie, he's not really even trying to hide the fact that he's got an agenda.

Joker's I won't even bother trying to defend. It was convoluted and didn't really make any logistical sense. But that wasn't a deal breaker for Dark Knight. Not by a long shot. That movie actually conveyed otherwise good tone, writing, pacing--and superb acting. And it was entertaining as hell. Unlike the PT.

The bigger your plan is, the greater chance it will fail.

Attempting to conquer a galaxy under your command will have countless ways of backfiring. But if you can control the major aspects and ensure they all happen (and flow together), then every descending variable has a strong tendency of following suit.

Originally posted by Nephthys
I did not say that its weak for reliance on coincidence, luck and shit just going right for him, but instead to the sheer quantity of said variables. His plan is (possibly) weak because it just had so many ways to destabalise.

mmm

I'm not sure I buy that. I mean, that disregards context, really. Palpatine's gambit is fairly larger in scope than the conventional Magnificent Bastard or the standard Xanatos Gambit. We're talking about a galaxy of trillions, here. Palpatine's plans could have been altered by the decisions of many, true, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was a weak plan. A weak plan is one that does not minimize risk; the presence of many potentially game-changing variables is only a problem if there was a simpler way to achieve one's ends.

George establishes Palpatine as a character with less of a concrete plan and more of a person who simply takes advantage of opportunity, which is established in the films and the EU.

Now all I can think of is Disney's Gargoyles thanks to that damned Xanatos Gambit.

Exactly as planned.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
mmm

I'm not sure I buy that. I mean, that disregards context, really. Palpatine's gambit is fairly larger in scope than the conventional Magnificent Bastard or the standard Xanatos Gambit. We're talking about a galaxy of trillions, here. Palpatine's plans could have been altered by the decisions of many, true, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was a weak plan. A weak plan is one that does not minimize risk; the presence of many potentially game-changing variables is only a problem if there was a simpler way to achieve one's ends.

George establishes Palpatine as a character with less of a concrete plan and more of a person who simply takes advantage of opportunity, which is established in the films [b]and the EU. [/B]

Agree to disagree?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But you seem to think that just because Palpatine "had a plan" that... well, what? It could have unraveled at any time. His entire plan hinged on a lot--[b]a lot of variables that could have unfolded and buried him at a moment's notice. The fact that the entire progression of the prequels rested solely on such ridiculous schemes is a sign of a larger problem: bad writing.[/b]

As I explained, that Palpatine's plans relied on many variables is neither the product of bad planning on his behalf or bad writing on behalf of George. You can't point to me a single gambit made by any noteworthy villain without pointing out the potential setbacks. Palpatine's planning was only weak if he didn't do his best to minimize the number of variables at play. You're neglecting the obvious fact of scale and scope: Palpatine was attempting something a bit more ambitious than the standard villain, why wouldn't it have more variables involved?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Tarkin ran a major risk. [b]A major risk. Vader's gambit (I assume luring Luke to Cloud City?) wasn't much of a risk.[/b]

Sure it was. What if Luke obeyed Yoda and didn't go? What if Han was killed under torture? What if Lando rebelled sooner and interfered? What if Luke was killed en route by a faulty navicomputer? What if Vader missed a block and was killed by Luke?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Revealing to Luke the truth wasn't really either. It didn't have the effect he wanted--and I like that. Shows that he can miscalculate. Unlike Palpatine, who must have, like RLM said, been controlling everyone's mind since the first movie. That or they're all really stupid.

facepalm

You're telling me Palpatine didn't suffer setbacks?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And I like that Tarkin actually acknowledged it was a risk. He sounded and looked concerned about it. He was supremely confident in victory, and was willing to make a big gamble to ensure a swift end--but he still knew he was putting everything on the line to do so. Palpatine seemed to take dozens of chances. Some of them seemed to appear out of nowhere. And for him, victory couldn't have been so certain. Not with so many countless variables. Not over the course of 13 years. But they all went off without a hitch. But he never voices doubt, or worry. There's nothing at all to indicate that years of scheming and plotting are at stake, and that every single detail is important. It's like he knows it's all going to go well. By the third movie, he's not really even trying to hide the fact that he's got an agenda.

Me
facepalm

You're telling me Palpatine didn't suffer setbacks?

Me
As we saw from the many setbacks endured by the Sith throughout the films: the presence of Jedi investigators during the blockade of Naboo, Trade Federation's defeat, Maul's death, Padme's survival of the assassination attempt, Grievous's defeat at Obi-Wan's hands, Palpatine's defeat at Windu's hands, Yoda's survival, Anakin's defeat at Obi-Wan's hands... Palpatine is a master of adaptation.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Joker's I won't even bother trying to defend. It was convoluted and didn't really make any logistical sense. But that wasn't a deal breaker for Dark Knight. Not by a long shot. That movie actually conveyed otherwise good tone, writing, pacing--and superb acting. And it was entertaining as hell. Unlike the PT.

So illogical/weak schemes inherently important to the story are fine... as long as you like the film?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Agree to disagree?

That's fine, yo.

I personally think Sidious' plan was weak. Better to adhere to Exar Kun's plan.

Walk in and gut bitches?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I personally think Sidious' plan was weak. Better to adhere to Exar Kun's plan.

Which one worked? hmph

Were or were not bitches gutted?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Were or were not bitches gutted?

Agen Kolar, Saesse Tiin, and Kit Fisto would submit that bitches were gutted by both foolz.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
Which one worked? hmph

When you have exponential amounts of Force power, all bitches be weak, except for tens of thousands which be hatin' on ur pad, yo.

Also:

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/bombadil.htm

You know it to be true.

A mere Google search has provided alternate sources of information, if you don't want to take me at my word. This essay is relatively brief and succeeds in articulating the nature of Palpatine's plans:

The brilliance of The Phantom Menace, masked by Lucas' foibles, is a story in which the heroes win every single battle... and end up losing the war. And they don't even know it.

👆

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
A mere Google search has provided alternate sources of information, if you don't want to take me at my word. This essay is relatively brief and succeeds in articulating the nature of Palpatine's plans:

👆

This is clearly written by a fanboi.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
This is clearly written by a fanboi.

Spoiler:
Obviously, he doesn't think the prequels or Palpatine suck.

Which makes one question his mentality.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Which makes one question his mentality.

Could be worse.

Spoiler:
He could swear allegiance to Dooku or Marka Ragnos.

That would only make him awesome. The Holy Unity consists of Malak, Ragnos, Sadow, Simus, Hord, Revan, Bandon, Dooku, and Obi-Wan.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
As I explained, that Palpatine's plans relied on many variables is neither the product of bad planning on his behalf or bad writing on behalf of George. You can't point to me a single gambit made by any noteworthy villain without pointing out the potential setbacks. Palpatine's planning was [b]only weak if he didn't do his best to minimize the number of variables at play. You're neglecting the obvious fact of scale and scope: Palpatine was attempting something a bit more ambitious than the standard villain, why wouldn't it have more variables involved? [/B]

And if what you want me to accept is that Palpatine's "plan" was really just an "adapt to every situation as they come and hope no one catches on (though they should have if they weren't written as morons)" scheme more chaotic and random than the Joker's... then his success is even less believable than before and it only hurts the films' already non-existent credibility.

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
Sure it was. What if Luke obeyed Yoda and didn't go? What if Han was killed under torture? What if Lando rebelled sooner and interfered? What if Luke was killed en route by a faulty navicomputer?

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
facepalm

You're telling me Palpatine didn't suffer setbacks?

AOTC: Padme almost got killed (by his own henchman's hand) before she could develop a relationship with Anakin for him to exploit. Almost...

Oh and many things didn't go according to pla-- oh, wait...

RotS: Mace beat him (maybe). Yoda got away. Vader became disfigured.

Is that it? Or are there larger, more damning setback he suffered before he totally and completely won the galaxy?

Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
So illogical/weak schemes inherently important to the story are fine... as long as you like the film?

And neither were Palpatine's utterly absurd machinations. Those did not ruin the prequels. Not by a long shot. 7 hours of bad writing, bad timing, bad pacing, poor tone, shitty acting, boring characters, senseless plots and compensatory special effects ruined the prequels. Palpatine's scheme was but one symptom of many, and at least his were of the one character that seemed to have consistent passion and a decent actor portraying him. I can forgive the Palpatine character because he is otherwise so much fun to watch. Unlike almost everything else in those films.