Originally posted by The_Tempest
😬He really doesn't. I already explained to you how AOTC itself is a stellar example of the lengths Sidious goes to not telegraph his bids for power. Sidious wants to start the Clone Wars. For that to happen, he needs the Republic to form a military. So rather than campaign for the creation of one (as many real world politicians would), he publicly goes to great lengths to delay the vote to accommodate the opposition and reaffirms his stance in negotiation.
He needs emergency powers to create an army with the Senate in gridlock, but does he campaign or ask for them (as Hitler, a real world successful politician did)? Nope. He has his flunkies do it for him whilst he "reluctantly" accepts and vows to lay them down the second they're no longer needed.
You're not very good at this, Neph. Whether that owes to ignorance or dishonesty is unclear (likely a bit of both), but we're back to square one. Let's leave it to NemeBro or Beefy.
All of the things you're talking about is just the story and concept divorced from the actual movie itself. You can say all these things that make it look like Sidious' storyline is intelligent and enthralling, but when you actually watch the movie the reality is bad. Sidious' rise is subtle and nuanced in theory alone, but the reality is that Lucas, the writing and the acting completely balls it up. His reluctance is transparently fake and his "I love democracy" speech is hilariously on the nose. His "oh man, if only someone would vote me emergency powers! wink wink nudge nudge" scene makes it farcically transparent.
This is the big problem with your view. You're enamored with the concept of Sidious' story and praise it without registering that it completely falls flat in it's delivery and that the movie itself is simply bad.
Originally posted by Nephthys
All of the things you're talking about is just the story and concept divorced from the actual movie itself. You can say all these things that make it look like Sidious' storyline is intelligent and enthralling, but when you actually watch the movie the reality is bad. Sidious' rise is subtle and nuanced in theory alone, but the reality is that Lucas, the writing and the acting completely balls it up. His reluctance is transparently fake and his "I love democracy" speech is hilariously on the nose. His "oh man, if only someone would vote me emergency powers! wink wink nudge nudge" scene makes it farcically transparent.This is the big problem with your view. You're enamored with the concept of Sidious' story and praise it without registering that it completely falls flat in it's delivery and that the movie itself is simply bad.
Whether or not you find McDiarmid's delivery of the lines convincing is entirely subjective and it's fine if you don't. Likewise, I find Traya's low ominous delivery and presentation Obviously Evil and similarly transparent.
But the fact of the matter is that Palpatine/Sidious takes public actions that seemingly defy his private goals in order to eliminate suspicion and in that regard, he clearly does not telegraph his ambitions.
Respectfully, you're dishonest and/or ignorant about this subject to provide any reasonable discussion. But that's OK. We can agree to disagree. 👆
Sidious in prequels is hardly present. People are just hyped up because they know who he is from episode VI. People wanted to see Palpatine fight, which is to do with his appearance in OT, not the quality of his grand plan.
You guys seriously over-analyze here. All that matters is whether film/game give enjoyable experience or not.
Originally posted by The_TempestWhether or not you find McDiarmid's delivery of the lines convincing is entirely subjective and it's fine if you don't. Likewise, I find Traya's low ominous delivery and presentation Obviously Evil and similarly transparent.
But the fact of the matter is that Palpatine/Sidious takes public actions that seemingly defy his private goals in order to eliminate suspicion and in that regard, he clearly does not telegraph his ambitions.
Respectfully, you're dishonest and/or ignorant about this subject to provide any reasonable discussion. But that's OK. We can agree to disagree. 👆
As always, you hide the films inadequacies behind the subjectivity defense. Which I find very odd considering that all of this was started by you saying that you feel Traya was more transparent in her manipulations than Palpatine, as you kind of indicated to again above. So that doesn't really work considering it was you who started this whole "who was more Obviously Evil/Untrustworthy than the other" thing, which has diddly squat about facts and is just a subjective argument about who comes off as more openly evil. All I did was point to scenes where Palpatine was similarly transparent in his machinations.
Nice to see you get so defensive though, old chum. 😉
Originally posted by Nephthys
As always, you hide the films inadequacies behind the subjectivity defense.
Whether or not you find an actor's delivery convincing is a subjective determination, Neph. That you've historically struggled with distinguishing between what is subjective and what is objective doesn't change that. 😬
Originally posted by Nephthys
Which I find very odd considering that all of this was started by you saying that you feel Traya was more transparent in her manipulations than Palpatine, as you kind of indicated to again above. So that doesn't really work considering it was you who started this whole "who was more Obviously Evil/Untrustworthy than the other" thing, which has diddly squat about facts and is just a subjective argument.
Because Palpatine himself never publicly behaves untrustworthy until the very end.
Originally posted by Nephthys
All I did was point to scenes where Palpatine was similarly transparent in his machinations.
Except, again, McDiarmid's delivery of Palpatine's lines notwithstanding, Palpatine's actions aren't transparent.
If they were, he'd be flat-out asking to be named Chancellor in Episode 1, he'd be asking for the creation of a clone army and the transference of emergency powers in Episode 2, and then he'd hold the Senate at gunpoint in Episode 3 and naming himself Emperor.
Instead, he consistently utilizes misdirection, deception, and pretense to work his plots. That's not subjective, that's fact.
Nephthys
Nice to see you get so defensive though, old chum.
If I were defensive, wouldn't I in fact be desperate to engage you and not willing to agree to disagree? mmm
You're silly.
My Hitler jpeg failed.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Whether or not you find an actor's delivery convincing is a subjective determination, Neph. That you've historically struggled with distinguishing between what is subjective and what is objective doesn't change that. 😬
I think the issue is that you're so obviously only using it so that you don't have to admit that his scenes are bad and that a child could recognise his ambitions in them. So whenever you bring this up it just comes off as self-serving on your part and a blatant excuse to dodge the issue.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Because Palpatine himself never publicly behaves untrustworthy until the very end.
Except in the times I indicated. Which is my point.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Except, again, McDiarmid's delivery of Palpatine's lines notwithstanding, Palpatine's actions aren't transparent.If they were, he'd be flat-out asking to be named Chancellor in Episode 1, he'd be asking for the creation of a clone army and the transference of emergency powers in Episode 2, and then he'd hold the Senate at gunpoint in Episode 3 and naming himself Emperor.
Instead, he consistently utilizes misdirection, deception, and pretense to work his plots. That's not subjective, that's fact.
I don't care about his actions, I care about what Lucas actually put on screen. Stop looking at the words and start looking at how they're being said. I don't care if it's subjective, most people can see through an obvious deception. Palpatines actions may not be transparent but the way he acts is transparent. That "If only.... Senator Amidala were here...." scene is something out of a children's show. Where they make it obvious and funny in how obvious it is because its for children. It's "subjective" in how obvious it is, just like it's "subjective" that poo tastes horrible.
The fact that he used subterfuge isn't the issue, the issue is that his subterfuge is unconvincing. I could write a story where the villain transparently manipulates the heroes and say that it's not transparent because he doesn't directly tell them to go do shit. By your standard he'd be a mastermind but he only actually gets away with it because the characters are stupid and fall for his obvious deception.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
If I were defensive, wouldn't I in fact be desperate to engage you and not willing to agree to disagree? mmm
No?
Originally posted by Nephthys
I think the issue is that you're so obviously only using it so that you don't have to admit that his scenes are bad and that a child could recognise his ambitions in them. So whenever you bring this up it just comes off as self-serving on your part and a blatant excuse to dodge the issue.b
If line delivery is subjective {and it is}, then I really wouldn't have to admit to anything unless I felt the same way about about the subjective issue as you do {which I don't}.
Your emotion is getting the better of you.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Except in the times I indicated. Which is my point.
But he didn't?
Originally posted by Nephthys
I don't care about his actions, I care about what Lucas actually put on screen.
His actions are on screen?
Originally posted by Nephthys
Stop looking at the words and start looking at how they're being said. I don't care if it's subjective, most people can see through an obvious deception.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Palpatines actions may not be transparent but the [b]way he acts is transparent. That "If only.... Senator Amidala were here...." scene is something out of a children's show.[/b]
That was Mas Amedda who delivered that line, not Palpatine. I've explained that to you before, my son. Also, considering their target, it really isn't a stretch. {The only stretch is that Jar Jar would be in a position to introduce sweeping legislation in the first place, which is indeed goofy.}
Originally posted by Nephthys
Where they make it obvious and funny in how obvious it is because its for children. It's "subjective" in how obvious it is, just like it's "subjective" that poo tastes horrible.
Originally posted by Nephthys
The fact that he used subterfuge isn't the issue, the issue is that his subterfuge is unconvincing. I could write a story where the villain transparently manipulates the heroes and say that it's not transparent because he doesn't directly tell them to go do shit. By your standard he'd be a mastermind but he only actually gets away with it because the characters are stupid and fall for his obvious deception.No?
If the mastermind goes to great lengths to conceal his ambition and utilize misdirection to achieve his ends, then no, I probably wouldn't declare the protagonists stupid simply because he manipulated them.
Sorry, Neph, I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree. But NemeBro, feel free to respond.
Originally posted by The_TempestWhether or not you find McDiarmid's delivery of the lines convincing is entirely subjective and it's fine if you don't. Likewise, I find Traya's low ominous delivery and presentation Obviously Evil and similarly transparent.
But the fact of the matter is that Palpatine/Sidious takes public actions that seemingly defy his private goals in order to eliminate suspicion and in that regard, he clearly does not telegraph his ambitions.
Respectfully, you're dishonest and/or ignorant about this subject to provide any reasonable discussion. But that's OK. We can agree to disagree. 👆
This kind of equivocation is why it is so infuriating to debate with you. ( 😍 )
Ian McDiarmid's delivery of the lines is not the issue. It is the lines themselves. No amount of acting talent could make the line "I love democracy" any less cringeworthy than Ian did. So while you are right that the acting skill minimized the cringe of the writing, the writing itself remained cringeworthy.
To elaborate a little, the majority of criticisms I've seen (or generated myself) are aimed at the film's instantiation of the character Sidious, not at the actor. Sidious the character had a heavy handed manipulation scene with Jar Jar. It was a clever plot, but watching it felt like watching a kindergartner use reverse psychology.
The same issue arises with the Jedi council. It may be reasonable for them to be suspicious of Anakin, and Samuel L. Jackson does a good job conveying that distrust. Regardless, the scene in which the Jedi council refuses a mastery to Anakin feels both arbitrary and unnecessary. The movie does not justify the characters' actions; only years of scholarship and thought about the movies does that.
Essentially: The prequels are rife with PIS in terms of social combat feats.
Originally posted by Zampanó
This kind of equivocation is why it is so infuriating to debate with you. ( 😍 )Ian McDiarmid's delivery of the lines is not the issue. It is the lines themselves. No amount of acting talent could make the line "I [b]love
democracy" any less cringeworthy than Ian did. So while you are right that the acting skill minimized the cringe of the writing, the writing itself remained cringeworthy.To elaborate a little, the majority of criticisms I've seen (or generated myself) are aimed at the film's instantiation of the character Sidious, not at the actor. Sidious the character had a heavy handed manipulation scene with Jar Jar. It was a clever plot, but watching it felt like watching a kindergartner use reverse psychology.
The same issue arises with the Jedi council. It may be reasonable for them to be suspicious of Anakin, and Samuel L. Jackson does a good job conveying that distrust. Regardless, the scene in which the Jedi council refuses a mastery to Anakin feels both arbitrary and unnecessary. The movie does not justify the characters' actions; only years of scholarship and thought about the movies does that.
Essentially: The prequels are rife with PIS in terms of social combat feats. [/B]
Except Neph rather specifically stated that his issue was with "how" the words were said, not "what" was being said. {in fact, he admonished me for looking too closely at the words themselves rather than the delivery}
And with respect to your issue with the chosen words, your exposure to real world political speeches and addresses must be... Painfully limited if you found Palpatine's remarks to be unusually cringeworthy.
For the sake of clarity, would you mind elaborating more as to your own position?
Well actually you're all derailing the thread. It was about if Palpatine will come back as a Force Spirit.
And the answer is maybe.. But if he does it will not be a Yoda/Kenobi/Qui-Gon type spirit, where it's actually them in spirit form. It will be a non-real resonance of the past type spirit like with Bane in TCW.
Because as far as Official Canon goes, Sith are not meant to have an after life, which is why they cling to life so obsessively.