New Redletter Media video about Lucas

[Bakustra]

What makes you think he's weak? He sent a team of Jedi to stop the blockade, which would have succeeded if not for factors he didn't know about, tried to do an end-run around Senatorial procedures- there's not a lot to show that he's weak as opposed to the Republic being fucked up or even Amidala being dissatisfied with the Senate not believing her immediately (which damages her character as we are meant to interpret it) and refusing to comply with the law.

I should have clarified; the "incompetent and weak" Valorum is the one that she perceives following his refusal to act immediately on her claims.

Okay, but that could as easily make her someone who mouths words about democracy, but when the chips are down, turns to any means to resolve problems, as it does make her the fervent lover of democratic rule the rest of the movies demand that she be.

And then she is told she has to wait for Palpatine to get into power, at which point she decides to leave. This is the scene after Anakin gets tested in the Jedi Temple. Like I said, there's a delay either way, and it is, I think, reasonable to assume that a change of government would mean delays.

Yes, but you mentioned the scene in which Palpatine informs Amidala that she's going to have to accept the Federation's occupation of Naboo. Regardless of the delay, Amidala feels that she has removed a facilitator of political corruption from power and that the benefits will soon follow. This is tragic irony, of course, given that the one whom she replaces him with is an even greater source of corruption.

Why should we interpret that? The scene as written doesn't present Valorum as corrupt, nor does it do so as filmed, so there's no reason for us to conclude that is the case from what is presented, and thus it is a weakness.

For fuck's sake. The man is a cackling incarnation of evil who chews through scenery like it's going out of style when we first get his hologram onscreen in TESB.

Actually, I don't think he cackles once in The Empire Strikes Back; he seems pretty calm.
Palpatine, even in the classic trilogy, is a man who masks his true nature behind a facade. In the original films, it was a facade of weakness-- relying on his cane publicly, referring to Vader as "friend," and keeping the cackling to a minimum until he's alone with Vader and Luke.

A cackling psychopath isn't likely to gain support in a political setting and I think even the most ardent apologist would have a hard time suspending their disbelief at the idea of a hooded, wrinkled Sith Lord maniacally carving his way through the Senate and achieving utter power.

He is presented as a figure of menace in the OT even when he's walking with a cane and feigning physical weakness. The evil exudes from him, and I think you didn't parse my sentence correctly- I was referring to his bombastic portrayal by "scenery-chewing". Not to mention that Star Wars is a fantasy that is not especially "realistic" and shouldn't be made into such. And again, Hitler gained power despite being obviously crazier than the Emperor.

Palpatine as Julius Hitler-Caesar works better than as a master of disguise, and it can easily explain why he's able to hide from the Jedi without any "shroud of the darkside" stuff- the dark side would be strong with him regardless of whether he were a trained Sith or not. And the story of how someone duped a bunch of people to become king and then turned out to be evil is a lot less powerful and a lot less compelling than the story of how someone obviously evil and crazy became ruler- and nobody stopped him. And the movies can do that, and it's something much subtler than what we get on screen.

I completely and utterly disagree. It's more powerful that the Senate and characters relinquish power to him voluntarily and as they realize their mistake, try to stop him. I don't see how blatant terrorism and unfettered maniacal psychopathy breeds subtlety.

What are you talking about? You're not really contradicting me, so why is it necessary that he be a master manipulator and incredible liar or whatever, which distances him from his roots as a character (Hitler, Julius Caesar, Nixon) in important ways?

[G1d3on]

I found it pretty self-evident, actually. Palpatine's whispers into her ear serve as narration for the audience. Amidala returned to the Senate to seek aid against the Federation. Valorum, consummate bureaucrat, is cowed by the Trade Federation's representative to send a committee to investigate Amidala's claims instead of simply acting on them {which would probably be the proper decision in the real world, but I digress}, so a disenchanted Amidala calls instead for a Vote of No Confidence to remove Valorum from power. Of course even this will take time, so she elects to return to Naboo with Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan rather than wait around. This is pretty clear from the source material.

I agree it's pretty clear that Amidala is supposed to be frustrated with the Senate's bureaucratic nonsense, so she flips out and declares a Vote of No Confidence. Obviously, the intention here is to show that the Senate is corrupt and ineffective. The only problem I have with this scene is that, the way it's written, rather than portraying an ineffective Senate mired in corruption and bureaucracy, it portrays a Queen who flips out immediately when she doesn't get her way. Rather than showing Amidala present her case and bring forth evidence by, e.g. bringing in the Jedi to testify, showing the ship's sensor logs, showing R2-D2's memory banks, etc., she just flips out when Valorum requests that a committee be sent to Naboo to investigate. Whether or not Valorum is corrupt or incompetent, his suggestion to send a committee to investigate the situation is totally reasonable, given that Amidala has (inexplicably) failed to provide any evidence of the invasion. As soon as Valorum suggested the committee, Amidala should have brought forth evidence to validate her claims. But instead she just flips out and declares a vote of no confidence.

Again, this is one of those issues which has been debated to death previously in this forum. Prequel defenders will come up with all sorts of excuses to explain why Amidala didn't bring forth evidence - the most common excuse is that it wouldn't have even mattered if she did, because the Senate was hopelessly corrupt. Of course, this is just begging the question: the whole point of this scene should be to SHOW US that the Senate is hopelessly corrupt. But all it really shows us is that Amidala is really impatient, incompetent or easily manipulated.

Amidala likely didn't bring forth the Jedi to testify because Valorum skirted Senatorial procedure by sending them in the first place; Sidious himself was surprised by their presence. Bringing them forth would likely have heaped more shit on Valorum and thus sent him scurrying faster to placate the slighted Federation. Her reaction to Valorum's reasonable demand for proof is testament to the fact that her veneer of cold detachment isn't real: at heart, she's a teenage girl whose intent is pure but whose judgment is clouded by inexperience and emotion. This is one of the great things about the scene: Amidala opened the door to Palpatine by kicking out a man who, for all his faults, was acting reasonably and obeying the law. As far as depicting the Senate as corrupt, this is actually the one thing I feel the prequels wholeheartedly failed at. The only source of corruption in the Senate from the films is Palpatine himself, which does nothing but contradict the moral ambiguity George apparently sought to create.

{Forgive me for not doing a line-by-line dissection, but that's surprisingly very time consuming.}

[G1d3on]

Okay, but that could as easily make her someone who mouths words about democracy, but when the chips are down, turns to any means to resolve problems, as it does make her the fervent lover of democratic rule the rest of the movies demand that she be.

Well that depends on your view of the films' intent. The classic trilogy was a study in archetypes and a story with heavy mythological elements. To me, the prequels were a subversion of that, introducing much more moral ambiguity and greater complexity to the narrative. My view of Amidala is that she's human, no different from any other champion of democracy alive-- in that she claims to be one and yet, under the certain circumstances, can set those values aside for something else. She's not the only character in the prequels to do that. It makes her more interesting to me, that way.

Why should we interpret that? The scene as written doesn't present Valorum as corrupt, nor does it do so as filmed, so there's no reason for us to conclude that is the case from what is presented, and thus it is a weakness.

Because Palpatine's monologue indicates that Valorum is a slave to bureaucrats who are on the payroll of the Trade Federation, which is absolutely tantamount to corruption. Palpatine takes Valorum's refusal to act on Amidala's pleases and takes it out of context, distorting the desperate and inexperienced Amidala's view of him. Again, I'd say that's pretty self-evident.

He is presented as a figure of menace in the OT even when he's walking with a cane and feigning physical weakness.

But he tones it down. And Palpatine again exudes menace as Darth Sidious. But not as a Senator, and I remain skeptical of your assertions that he should have acted more openly malevolent in the political arena.

The evil exudes from him, and I think you didn't parse my sentence correctly- I was referring to his bombastic portrayal by
"scenery-chewing". Not to mention that Star Wars is a fantasy that is not especially "realistic" and shouldn't be made into such. And again, Hitler gained power despite being obviously crazier than the Emperor.

That Star Wars has fantasy elements to it doesn't mean that the way people act, behave, and communicate with one another should be out of line with what happens in the real world.

What are you talking about? You're not really contradicting me, so why is it necessary that he be a master manipulator and incredible liar or whatever, which distances him from his roots as a character (Hitler, Julius Caesar, Nixon) in important ways?

Because Palpatine was presented as a master manipulator and deceiver in the classic films. It was he who masterminded the trap at Endor that snared the Rebels and it was he who managed to, by sheer goading, drive Luke to nearly kill his father and turn to the dark side. Nowhere other than the original Star Wars novelization was Palpatine ever presented as a maniacally calculating buffoon; there has always been a cunning intellect about him.

Suffice it to say that while I respect your opinion, I don't agree with it. In my opinion, presenting Palpatine as a mild-mannered democrat who convinces the galaxy to hand him ultimate power serves the story much better than turning him into a two-bit warlord who takes it by force, which is a far more time-tried and tested trope.

[G1d3on]

imo the senate scenes actually needed more exposition, though hopefully not boring exposition. This is some complex system that everyone is playing... but they never really talk us through it (at least not that I recall right now, and I'm out of time so can't check).

It seems like Jar Jar could be tapped there, to ask the questions on behalf of the audience.


EDIT: "I'll take the exposition on senate, hold the bongo." LOLOOLOLOL i crack myself up like the planet core

I think we needed more show than tell on Senate corruption. Definitely came off like the Republic was a host of saints in the films, especially compared to the CIS. But I digress.

[Gunhead]

Amidala likely didn't bring forth the Jedi to testify because Valorum skirted Senatorial procedure by sending them in the first place; Sidious himself was surprised by their presence. Bringing them forth would likely have heaped more shit on Valorum and thus sent him scurrying faster to placate the slighted Federation. Her reaction to Valorum's reasonable demand for proof is testament to the fact that her veneer of cold detachment isn't real: at heart, she's a teenage girl whose intent is pure but whose judgment is clouded by inexperience and emotion. This is one of the great things about the scene: Amidala opened the door to Palpatine by kicking out a man who, for all his faults, was acting reasonably and obeying the law. As far as depicting the Senate as corrupt, this is actually the one thing I feel the prequels wholeheartedly failed at. The only source of corruption in the Senate from the films is Palpatine himself, which does nothing but contradict the moral ambiguity George apparently sought to create.

There's no evidence that Valorum exceeded his authority by sending the Jedi and at arrival they openly identified themselves as ambassadors and it's silly to assume they could have negotiate an end to the blockade if they didn't have mandate to do so. Just because they were sent secretly doesn't mean they or Valorum are breaking the law or even bending it or that Valorum needed approval from the senate to send them. Now they weren't ambassadors for the senate, they were ambassadors of Valorum directly, but you can pretty much tell from the TF reaction to their arrival that TF didn't dispute their legitimacy as negotiators. Doesn't even really matter. The jedi were personal envoys to Valorum and last time I checked, attempting to murder envoys of a head of state is a big no no, specially when combined with actual murder of the personnel carrying said envoys. The grating part isn't that the TF could have swept claims of attempted assassination under the rug, it's that the whole matter is brushed aside and forgotten never to be raised again.

-Gunhead

[Dalton]

This is the biggest fucking trainwreck of a thread I've ever seen. Cut the shit or I will detail some of the more unpleasant moderators to come in here and clean house.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

With all due respect...

1) The thread's been dead for three days, I'm pretty certain it would have gone away on its own.
2) Since Jimmy bailed out, 'the shit' was cut in half [Elfie's 'spunkfelching' (what?) notwithstanding] and we've actually had a couple pages of decent discussion.
3) What is meant by 'unpleasant' mods? Thanas and Vympel have already been, gone, and failed to give a shit, the rest are either decently liked or laughably forgettable.