Why The Episode One hate?

[Khas]

I was only 8 when TPM came out and I loved it then.

Now, at 19, I think it should have been on MST3K.

[Cocytus]

www.rifftrax.com

They have all the Wars films and a few Trek ones.

[Mr. Oragahn]

And as a personal nitpick, Palpatine in Episode 3 Is. God. Awful. I can't put enough emphasis on that. In ROTJ he was restrained and calm, and all the more threatening. He never raised his voice, he never yelled and growled like he does in ROTS, never flailed around, he just sat there, totally sure of the superiority of his powers. And he was right..

You're forgetting when he appeared as Darth Sidious, he did all of those things right from the off. Palpatine was just an act to win people's confidence.

Of course his public face was an act. But which things are you referring to specifically? Yelling and screaming like a mental patient? I don't recall Sidious ever doing that until he became the Emperor in ROTS. At that point, for some reason, Lucas felt he needed to trowel on the weird demonspeak to get the point across that *psssst! the Emperor is evil.* I get it, George.

The Emperor's dialogue has always been a bit on the hammy side, given that he is a megalomaniacal evil villain. But the original ROTJ performance was restrained enough to make the Emperor threatening in a way he just isn't in ROTS. His intonation and phrasing are quite subdued in the initial exchange with Luke. "I'm looking forward to completing your training. In time you will call me Master." Then when he gets less subtle in his speech, it is always with purpose, from the arrogant condescension of his "an entire legion of my best troops awaits them," to the mocking tone of his "oh, I'm afraid the deflector shield will be quite operational when your friends arrive."

He's taunting and goading Luke, using anger and harshness when he needs to in his speech to reinforce the point he's making, and the reaction he's trying to elicit from Luke, as in "Strike me down with all of your hatred," and then "you, like your father, are now.....MINE."

All of the above is part of the Emperor's act. The only time he really gets angry is after he realizes he can't turn Luke, and from then on it's all facial expression. There was a point and purpose to the acting in ROTJ, and that movie's depiction of the Emperor is vastly superior to ROTS. In ROTS he's just drunk on his own power, and his characterization is more comical than threatening. WAAANCE MAWWRR THE SITH SHALL WRRRRUUUULE THE GALACKSEEE! And what on earth is that silly NO NO he gives Mace Windu? And the strangely catatonic dialogue of the opera house scene. Anakin I can understand, since he sucks, but McDiarmid gave IMO a great performance in ROTJ. Why couldn't he do the same here? The final duel between Palpatine and Yoda would have been far more convincing had it had the same level of emotional severity as Luke vs. Palpatine, a struggle of wills rather than yet another pointlessly acrobatic lightsaber duel. Personally, I always felt Yoda and the Emperor were above that sort of thing. In ROTJ, I could see the Emperor's arrogance, the sadistic pleasure he takes in taunting Luke, and finally his devolution into animalistic fury once he realizes his plan is not going as he has foreseen. In ROTS he's just silly.

All this powaaar is belong at meee! Mooaar powaar!! Unlimited powwaaaarrrr!!!!

[User1461]

I was only 8 when TPM came out and I loved it then.

Now, at 19, I think it should have been on MST3K.

It IS!
http://rifftrax.com
They've got the whole SW saga with the same guys riffing it, just no robot-silhouettes in front.

[User1461]

Of course his public face was an act. But which things are you referring to specifically? Yelling and screaming like a mental patient? I don't recall Sidious ever doing that until he became the Emperor in ROTS.

All this powaaar is belong at meee! Mooaar powaar!! Unlimited powwaaaarrrr!!!!

Exactly! His "Sidious-Sithlord" bit was also an act, so that he'd be taken seriously; once he became emperor then there was no need, and he showed his real self as a spoiled brat who always had to have his way, and screamed like a baby and threw a temper-tantrum if he didn't get it. He was always a vulgar, ruthless little cad with a Napoleaon complex, but he was simply lying like any ambitious dictator to get what he wanted, saying and doing whatever it took. It's called "Machiavellian politics," and it's just about every politician's modus operandi regarding any position of any power.
Welcome to reality, don't be fooled by a controlled manner or a caring tone, they're just pulling your strings.

[Cocytus]

You are missing my point. We're discussing a movie villain, and why he doesn't work as well in one film as opposed to the other.

Ian McDiarmid played Palpatine in all his appearances (post OT Special Edition, obviously. He was played by Clive Rivell and a chimp in the original TESB) But his performance in ROTJ is simply better than in ROTS. I blame Lucas' direction.

The Emperor went from being a sinister, threatening villain to a childish caricature, just like Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker. If the portrayal of the Emperor in ROTS works for you, fine. It doesn't work for me, for all the reasons I have mentioned. You can take those or leave them, it's up to you.

[User1461]

You are missing my point. We're discussing a movie villain, and why he doesn't work as well in one film as opposed to the other.

In your opinion. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Ian McDiarmid played Palpatine in all his appearances (post OT Special Edition, obviously. He was played by Clive Rivell and a chimp in the original TESB)

A chimp? You've been misinformed, the role was originally played by an elderly actress using prosthetic make-up for the holograph-scene in TESB, and was later re-shot using McDiarmid in the DVD.

But his performance in ROTJ is simply better than in ROTS. I blame Lucas' direction.

Or it was a different situation: in one instance he was seizing power, in another he was exercising it, which is what a control-freak does.

The Emperor went from being a sinister, threatening villain to a childish caricature, just like Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker.

Such primadonna-like behavior is classic of every tyrant in history; they're only cold and calculating when it suits them, but they're typically unstable. Fear leads to anger leads to the Dark Side; if you like villains, then it's a healthy dose of realism for you: there's nothing austere or dignified about them, it's always a front for a seething child beneath that perfect exterior.

If the portrayal of the Emperor in ROTS works for you, fine. It doesn't work for me, for all the reasons I have mentioned. You can take those or leave them, it's up to you.

Or maybe it shows you'd do well to grow up and part with illusions of how "neat" villains are, as shown by those who've seen 'em.

[Admiral Breetai]

my only gripe with ep 1 and indeed the prequel..is that the emperor came off like a severe moron. between being saved because traffic was light that night he decided it would be brilliant to try and fight a man known as the greatest duelist in the order...and gravity bailing him out..when it would of been a heck of allot easier to either run away as fast as he could or...just I dunno fight a delaying action till back up arrived

his two confrontations..and anakins revealed clingy issues and his subsequent forgetting of them and gleefully torturing clingy mans son in front of him. sort of make him a bit of an idiot..or at the very least a mind bogglingly arrogant soul..though that fits I suppose..

beyond that muppet fu mace dooku and maul kinda made up for the failings..of the prequels to me any ways

[Cocytus]

In your opinion

Um, yeah. If I'm not too much mistaken, the original statement you took issue with began with "and as a personal nitpick"

Ian McDiarmid played Palpatine in all his appearances (post OT Special Edition, obviously. He was played by Clive Rivell and a chimp in the original TESB)

A chimp? You've been misinformed, the role was originally played by an elderly actress using prosthetic make-up for the holograph-scene in TESB, and was later re-shot using McDiarmid in the DVD.

I did some checking. You are correct that an elderly actress was used for the face, but I am also correct in that chimpanzee eyes were superimposed over hers. And he was indeed voiced by Clive Revill.

But his performance in ROTJ is simply better than in ROTS. I blame Lucas' direction.

Or it was a different situation: in one instance he was seizing power, in another he was exercising it, which is what a control-freak does.

By the time he fights Yoda, he has already seized power. He's exercising it as much as he's exercising it against Luke. One might say he genuinely hates Yoda, as opposed to merely having an interest in Luke as a successor to Vader, but he very clearly shows hatred towards Luke once Luke delivers the "you've failed" line. At that point he's no longer trying to convert Luke, he's trying to kill him. The glare he gives as he zaps Luke is chilling to me. Nothing about his ROTS incarnation chills me.

The Emperor went from being a sinister, threatening villain to a childish caricature, just like Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker.

Such primadonna-like behavior is classic of every tyrant in history; they're only cold and calculating when it suits them, but they're typically unstable. Fear leads to anger leads to the Dark Side; if you like villains, then it's a healthy dose of realism for you: there's nothing austere or dignified about them, it's always a front for a seething child beneath that perfect exterior.

I like movie villains, yes, as do a great many people who are perfectly healthy because we can tell the difference between movie villains and real life ones.

If the portrayal of the Emperor in ROTS works for you, fine. It doesn't work for me, for all the reasons I have mentioned. You can take those or leave them, it's up to you.

Or maybe it shows you'd do well to grow up and part with illusions of how "neat" villains are, as shown by those who've seen 'em.

So people who disagree with you are less mature than you? Cute. And who might "those who've seem 'em" be? Again, I can distinguish between movies and real life, and appreciating a good movie villain doesn't mean I'm going to become a Neo Nazi.

Is it impossible to appreciate a good villainous performance? I suppose the whole AFI should "grow up," since they publish a list of memorable villainous performances. I suppose the Academy should grow up, since they have awarded actors for villainous performances (like Anthony Hopkins, Heath Ledger, Marlon Brando, Charlize Theron, Robert DeNiro, etc.)

[Praeothmin]

I have to agree with Cocytus, while Palpatine was chillingly calm in RotJ, his performance in RotS was over the top, and not what we'd expect of the guys who was always in control in TESB and RotJ...

In fact, I hated the entire duel between Palpatine and the Jedi in RotS, it was bad, not well acted either, and Mace looked like a moron, not the badass he was in AotC where he calmly blocked Jango's blasts until he decapitated him...

[sonofccn]

The Emperor went from being a sinister, threatening villain to a childish caricature, just like Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker. If the portrayal of the Emperor in ROTS works for you, fine. It doesn't work for me, for all the reasons I have mentioned. You can take those or leave them, it's up to you.

Well for me I didn't have an issue with the Emperor and , in my opinion, had Lucas tried to "recreate" the emotionally repressed confident SOB he'd likely have failed miserably and we've have gotten something with the depth and "emotion" of a slab of cardboard.

Now what he did to Vader should be punished by the cruelist most inhuman torture man has devised. Being forced to personally and individualy listen to his "fans" alphabeticly list their complaints of the Prequal series until either the end of time or until they finish which ever happens first. :)

[Praeothmin]

have failed miserably and we've have gotten something with the depth and "emotion" of a slab of cardboard.

Like Anakin Christensen? :)

[sonofccn]

have failed miserably and we've have gotten something with the depth and "emotion" of a slab of cardboard.

Like Anakin Christensen? :)

Well I was hoping maybe not that extreme but same ballpark. Isn't a hammy Emperor better? At least you can tell him apart from his wax droid counterpart at the Imperial museum of imperialogy. ;)

[Lucky]

I always thought the Emperor was in poor health in ROTJ while he was in good health at the time of ROTS, and the guy was really just like that.

[User1462]

"The guy was just like that?" WTF?

I have to agree with Cocytus, while Palpatine was chillingly calm in RotJ, his performance in RotS was over the top, and not what we'd expect of the guys who was always in control in TESB and RotJ...

In fact, I hated the entire duel between Palpatine and the Jedi in RotS, it was bad, not well acted either, and Mace looked like a moron, not the badass he was in AotC where he calmly blocked Jango's blasts until he decapitated him...

Jango wasn't a Sith-Master, IIRC, and he was just one person, he wasn't taking over the entire republic. Mace Windu also liked fighting a little too much, and he was fairly unstable and "borderline" for a Jedi, coming perilously close to the Dark Side in order to build up his prowess; even his lightsaber was purple, which is a mixture of red and blue. So Mace had no problem fighting and killing someone; but when he came to arrest Palpatine, Mace tried to kill him even when it wasn't necessary-- and that's what cost him. Even the name "Mace" is fairly telling, i.e. a weapon for smashing in heads, ala "Maul." He certainly wasn't the "wise and calm" Jedi one would expect, but seemed rather to be constantly tensed for war.

Likewise, truth is stranger than fiction; and it's a fact that conquerors almost universally tended to respond in emotional outbursts.
I also don't see how anyon can call Palpatine "unemotional" in RotJ:

"Now see the POWER--- of this FULLY OPERATIONAL BATTLE STATION!"

Puh-leeze!

But as for the reason behind the Episode 1 hate, I have four words:

"BEN-HUR, DONE THAT!" ;-D