I'm really unsure as to the nature of your point, Lucien. I referenced the gambits of Tarkin and Vader to illustrate a point: That even in the much-vaunted OT, there were characters whose plans hinged on the actions of other characters—individuals over whom they had little to no control. That Tarkin and Vader failed in no way means that Palpatine's plans should have suffered the same fate; different planner, different circumstances. Palpatine's skills as a manipulator and strategist were established to be well beyond those of his underlings; he was also the beneficiary of some favorable circumstances in the form of the Force clouding Jedi perception, in addition to his own ability to look into the future.
As far as the success of Palpatine's plans are concerned, like it or not, the objective reality is that Palpatine repeatedly suffered setbacks throughout the films. That he still managed to achieve his goal is not due to the infallibility of the plan, but the adaptability of the planner. Your argument is essentially: Shit could have happened, but didn't, so it sucks.
That is an extraordinarily weak argument because it ignores both circumstance and context.
Lucien
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.
Palpatine clearly had a plan; an organized, predetermined set of actions and reactions he expected to occur. When circumstance deviated from expectations, Palpatine was clever enough to adapt. He didn't play it by ear nor did he adhere to an abnormally detailed plan. There were elements of both.
Lucien
TPM: Amidala escaped, Maul died, but Palpatine still became Chancellor--something I think we all suspected by the end of the film was his true goal all along.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?
facepalm
Seriously, what are you trying to get at? So, let me get this straight: because Palpatine succeeded in spite of the obstacles he faced, the plot is a failure?
I'm pretty sure every film is a failure then, because that's the typical Hero's Journey. A New Hope is a failure because Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star in spite of Vader's efforts?
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I doubt that. Behind the scenes, I control all. Even you.
Again, I rather doubt that. Given your penchant for characters like Dooku and Ragnos, behind-the-scenes work and manipulation and general success seem to be antithesis to all things Moose. 😐
Dying and accomplishing nothing in your lifetime or dying a pawn of a greater intellect and power seem much more appropriate.
Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
Again, I rather doubt that. Given your penchant for characters like Dooku and Ragnos, behind-the-scenes work and manipulation and general success seem to be antithesis to all things Moose. 😐Dying and accomplishing nothing in your lifetime or dying a pawn of a greater intellect and power seem much more appropriate.
And this is where you are wrong.
But all good things in their time.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I'm on to you, Gideon.
Let's cut the chase and make it literal, baby. he
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Your mother doesn't show exhaustion like mortal folk, so I'd say I'm good.
Well why would she? You don't think that a mere mortal could produce a deity such as myself, do you? sneer
Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
Let's cut the chase and make it literal, baby. he
Rofl.
Well why would she? You don't think that a mere mortal could produce a deity such as myself, do you? sneer
It's obvious she fires off whatever sentient beings she can muster, so you'll do. Us sentient rational beings, however, will prosper and rule.
Originally posted by Turr_PhennirYes, good! Palpatine overcoming setbacks and maneuvering around failures would be a strong demonstration of his genius and skill. Now-- list me every time he maneuvered himself around, or out of, a "setback."
I'm really unsure as to the nature of your point, Lucien. I referenced the gambits of Tarkin and Vader to illustrate a point: That even in the much-vaunted OT, there were characters whose plans hinged on the actions of other characters—individuals over whom they had little to no control. That Tarkin and Vader failed in no way means that Palpatine's plans should have suffered the same fate; different planner, different circumstances. Palpatine's skills as a manipulator and strategist were established to be well beyond those of his underlings; he was also the beneficiary of some favorable circumstances in the form of the Force clouding Jedi perception, in addition to his own ability to look into the future.
I'll try it first myself.
TPM: Amidala escapes the blockade and doesn't sign the treaty. Palpatine takes the opportunity to force a no-confidence vote which gets him elected. That was a good one.
Maul dies. But I don't know how much of a setback that really is. The movies never speak of him again, and Palpatine's shown to have moved on without him. If we have to speculate without the film's input, we could also say that his death tied up a potential loose end for Palpatine. But I don't like doing that, because it's not the films' credit, which is what I'm looking for.
AotC: Palpatine's setbacks... what were his setbacks at this crucial stage... Anakin and Padme? Check. Clone Army? Check. Emergency Powers? Check. War? Check. Shroud of the Dark Side? Check. Everything going as planned? Check.
RotS: Setbacks... setbacks... Mace almost killed him. Dangerous risk, taking him on. Very dangerous. It almost failed, he almost died. It was worth it. Not because of his won manipulations and powers, but Anakin's timely arrival. An outside source had to intervene at the last second.
What else... Yoda escaped. Damn it. The audience knows that that means nothing until ESB. Vader becomes disfigured and hindered. That's the big one, as it provides the necessary impetus for much of the OT's plot.
So, out of the dozens of potential f*ck-ups that could have occurred, and should have occurred, only a couple come about, and Palpatine is only personally responsible for dodging the bullet once.
Did I miss any?
Originally posted by Turr_PhennirWhy didn't shit happen? Why did everything come up roses for Sidious? Why did this decades-long plan of intricate ploys and excruciating detail go off so smoothly, so seamlessly?
As far as the success of Palpatine's plans are concerned, like it or not, the objective reality is that Palpatine repeatedly suffered setbacks throughout the films. That he still managed to achieve his goal is not due to the infallibility of the plan, but the adaptability of the planner. Your argument is essentially: Shit could have happened, but didn't, so it sucks.That is an extraordinarily weak argument because it ignores both circumstance and context.
And more than that, tell me why I, as an audience member, should care? Why should I care about everyone he's affecting? Why should I marvel at his luck--for there's no other word for it--when any good guy who can foil him, is barely even trying because they're written like retards with no personality and whom I have no reason to be rooting for in the first place?
This is why DW argued that Palpatine should have been the main character of the Prequels. They could have shown us his genius machinations and screwing of the other characters, that way we'd be more appreciative of his successes and revel in the failures of the rest of the zombie-like cast.
Originally posted by Turr_PhennirSee above. Cite me his setbacks, and explain to me why his adaptation was so clever.
Palpatine clearly had a plan; an organized, predetermined set of actions and reactions he [b]expected to occur. When circumstance deviated from expectations, Palpatine was clever enough to adapt. He didn't play it by ear nor did he adhere to an abnormally detailed plan. There were elements of both.[/B]
Originally posted by Turr_PhennirSee above. Cite me every one of Palpatine's setbacks, especially the ones at the hands of the main characters, and tell me what about them made his adaptation so clever.
facepalmSeriously, what are you trying to get at? So, let me get this straight: because Palpatine succeeded in spite of the obstacles he faced, the plot is a failure?
I'm pretty sure every film is a failure then, because that's the typical Hero's Journey. A New Hope is a failure because Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star in spite of Vader's efforts?
And then tell me why I should care about these films when all they consist of is "boring, passionless, robotic, inhuman, sleep-inducing" characters, dialogue, and story. I literally can not watch these films without declaring to the TV how much they all suck. You seem to think they have some merit to them, and that Palpatine's absurdly lucky and unbelievably unrealistic scheme is the silver lining that proves that point. You can't be content that, despite Joker's Palaptine's stupid and illogical plan, it's the character himself that provides the silver lining?
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Rofl.
Is 'Rofl' Queerspeak for 'absolutely'? I must have Neph translate. mmm
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
It's obvious she fires off whatever sentient beings she can muster, so you'll do. Us sentient rational beings, however, will prosper and rule.
It is prophesied that those who serve the Count and the Ragnosed One shall suffer indignities unlike any other. uhuh
Actually, I'm going to be lazy and direct you to the essay I referenced earlier for the specifics, Lucien. It more than adequately explains the details and nature of the setbacks endured by Palpatine throughout the prequels.
The bottom line for me is that I honestly don't understand the rationale behind your argument. It's a bewildering twist of logic, in which you rely on hypothetical what-if scenarios to determine that since Palpatine's plan could have potentially unraveled, it was a weak scheme.
The reality of plans is thus: All plans require a measure of risk. In the nature of Palpatine's plot, which requires exorbitant political and psychological manipulation, success is determined by how closely one's pawns follow the script one has written. In Palpatine's case, his pawns constantly deviate from the chosen course: as explained in the essay, what Palpatine expects to happen and what actually occurs is oftentimes entirely different. A weak plan is one that does not minimize risks; that Palpatine continued to endure risks is not the sign of a weak plan, because the ambition of the goal was immense.
Equally perplexing to me is the idea that because Palpatine's plans succeeded in spite of the potential game-changers, the writing was weak. The objective fact of the prequels is that Palpatine must constantly work around other characters who act in opposition to his chosen path. When Amidala eludes capture, Palpatine must adapt; when Amidala, vocal opponent of the Military Creation Act, eludes assassination, Palpatine must adapt; when he reveals himself to Anakin Skywalker and Anakin turns him over to the Jedi Council instead of swearing allegiance, Palpatine must adapt.
Your complaint stems from the fact that Palpatine ultimately succeeds in his endeavors rather than fails entirely. This is where you lose me completely: every single film ever created features a character (most often the protagonist) who succeeds in his or her objectives in spite of the obstacles before him or her. By your reasoning, they all blow.
Perhaps you take issue with the perception that Palpatine didn't struggle enough. If so, you didn't successfully articulate it. Instead, it appears to me that what you're trying to say is a jumbled, ambiguous bundle of complaints concocted solely to give voice to your hatred for the prequels.
So I really don't know what to tell you, beyond that. If you don't accept the reality of the films -- not the quality, which is subjective, but the canon events depicted within, then there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion.
I'll check in with you later today. Lucien, Neph, Moose, it's been fun debating and flirting with you all, but I'm about to crash.
Later.