Talk: Palpatine/Legends/Archive8

Back to page |
< Talk:Palpatine/Legends

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Archived talk: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

Sidious never got disarmed!

Alright, when Sids and Yoda have their first force duel, you have a real good look at Sids face. It is scrunched together on his cheeks and has a yellow-greenish color. When they engage in a saber duel, you again have a good look at his face. It has not changed. He is not under direct light and since his face is hidden behind his cloak, his face looks gray now compared to the yellow-greenish as earlier seen. But thats because in the throne room, Sids face was in direct light so his face looks as exactly as it really is. But in the senate area, his face is darker because of the lack of light and his cloak. But in any case, his face has NOT changed. Now, Sids has changed tactics and starts to hurl pods at Yoda. When the camara pans in on his face, you can clearly see his face has NOT changed. It is exactly the way it was when the duel first started. So that contradicts what the Junior Novilization says of Sids face being further deformed. So therefore Sids was never disarmed by Yoda. What truly happened to his saber we probably will never know. HOWEVER, chances are that he chucked it once he realized that he and Yoda equaled in swordsmenship. Also, when Yoda pushed the pod back to Sidious and forced him to a lower Senate pod, we see the jedi master dash on the pod with his saber brandished. By the way of his position and his surprisement for when he got disarmed, makes it seem like Yoda was preparing for another Saber duel with Sidious. Now why would Yoda prepare for another saber duel with Sids if Yoda disarmed him earlier? Oh i know, cause Sids never got disarmed!!! Also for the sake of the argument, the novilization explained things that never happened in the movie, such as Yoda using his body as a weapon, something he was unable to do because he was still to weak from the lightning attack. Also, Yoda never tried to strike Sids while he was down, that would be murder, in yodas opinion. The novilization stated "Yoda brought his saber down, to be met by the emperors red sith blade." Never happened, Yoda NEVER tried to stab sids while he was down, he gave him a chance to defend himself, because that was the jedi way. Also, the pod fight was shortened greatly, Sids almost defeated Yoda with the pods, something the novel left out. So, the Juniour Novilization was written to make Yoda look more powerful, just as the novel itself tried to make Sids more powerful. The movie tried to make oppents look equal, something it did well. So we cant accept the Novel nor the Juniour Novilization as canon because both contradict the movie.

  • Aside from the fact that it seems you're trying to make two things appear to be the same, Sidious was disarmed. He lost his lightsaber. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No he wasnt cause we never saw it in the movie. And if it didnt happen in the movie, IT NEVER HAPPENED. And whos to say he just didnt chuck it or put it away?
    • Just because it wasn't shown in the movie doesn't mean it didn't happen. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, didn't one of the novelisations cover that? And besides, Palpatine wasn't that great a duelist, his talents lied elsewhere. .... 23:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey Palpatine defeated Yoda in a duel and also equaled him in saber combat. He also defeated three jedi in under five seconds. AND, he also defeated Mace Windu once he realized Anakin turned. That seems like a good duelist to me. But anyway, the way it says he got disarmed doesnt add up. Like for example, it says his face got further deformed because of that, which in actuality never happened because i just disproved that. And it says the blast of lightning knocked Yoda back, well from the way he landed on the pod, he landed facing foward not backward which wouldve happened if he had been knocked off the podium. And it says that palpatine had in fact backed up while firing his lightning at Yoda, which if you look at the podium can see it has very little room and is very unlikely palpatine could back up without falling off. And, in the novil it said he "redoubled the speed of his blows", the speed in which we see Yoda use against Palpy is the fastest he can go, otherwise we wouldve seen him go faster. So see, the whole way the disarment has been described in ways that have disproved or unlikely. Neither the novel nor Junior Novilization are complete canon, because both explain events that never happened. Therefore we must come to the conclusion that whatever happened on the poduim, whether Palps got disarmed or disposed his own weapon, we will never truly know until George Lucas himself tells us.
    • the script that lucas wrote himself has yoda disarming palpatine. then palpatine blasting some lightning then jumping for the high ground.

--Black Jack Scarron 08:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Did Mace physically beat Sidious or did Sidious mentally beat Mace?

  • We all see in the movie what happens: Sidious takes down three jedi masters in under 5 seconds. He later duels with Mace for a while until Anakin comes in and Sids is "miraculously" defeated. Then Sids is supposidly to "weak" to continue after firing his lightning. But as soon as Anakin turned, Sids killed Mace like it was nothing. And also when Sids dueled Yoda, you can clearly he redoubled the speed of his saber blows from last time which allowed him to pull off a stalemate with Yoda in a saber duel. He also later managed to defeat Yoda using his force abilities. Now if Sids was able to stalemate yoda with sabers, then beat him using the force, why couldnt he do the same with Mace? Because he played Mace like a harmonica!! Sids knew Anakin would never turn if he saw him waving a saber, so he decided to allow Mace to "outspare" him and "defeat" him until Anakin came him. Then he used the lightning as kind of a show to prove how powerful he was. He noticed how Anakin still hadnt decided and decided to play a "weak old man." Meanwhile Mace thinks he has the dark lord beat, little does he know the power still in sids and the game thats being played. Once Anakin turned and Sids was sure of it, he killed Mace and showed his true colors. So what do you see? I see a dark lord who managed to outsmart Mace Windu then later turn a jedi into his new apprentice. —Unsigned comment by 72.85.166.134 (talk • contribs)
    • Not again... not... AGAIN... Can I please delete this section and send the author to read the long discussion before? - Sikon 17:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Mace beat Sidious mentally, because without Anakin, the Sith Lord would have broken down and submitted to his execution. Master Mace 17:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Please don't restart old topics. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, if Palps was so "weak", why did he yell out "unlimited power!" at the top of his lungs? Also, Palps can forsee most things with the force, so he probably KNEW Anikan would side with him. Also, although a Saber can block force lightning, it can't block soemthing like a force push, and if Sidious did that, he would've gotten him out the window, killing him. If he manage to stalemate Yoda, and Yoda is a bit better than Mace, Palps probably didn't exactly try. He could've killed Mace on the spot, but wanted to seduce Anikan, so he played "weak", then yells unlimited power at the top of his lungs and murders Mace.

Continued discussion of culling Palpatine

  • Please continue the discussion from "Needs culling" down here. That way it doesn't carry on forever and it can be archived easier.
For what it's worth, I think this article can be made more encyclopediac- i.e. removal of the rhetorical questions and condensing of some of the more speculative parts. On the other hand, I definitely think this is one of our better articles, so I would have to disagree with Lord H3O+ that it's a mess. I mean, most of our major characters' articles are much less detailed than they should be. I'd rather have a little bit of expansive detail on one article created by a dedicated user or two than the sad level of detail exhibited on several other major characters. If it comes down to it, we can put it up on a CT thread again. Remember this: CT thread is a lot less negotiable than simply coming to an agreement here. Both sides of the discussion should compromise until a suitable arrangment is created. I'm glad everyone seems to be reasonable about this though. Atarumaster88 20px (Audience Chamber) 23:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Just echoing what elipsis, Hydronium, and JSarek have said. The problem here is not that it's too detailed, it's that it adds details that have nothing to do with the character in question. The writer's own personal musings aren't really warranted in an encyclopedia article, or one which hopes to echo it in any case. This is why, at the very least, the Conclusions section must go. I'll admit that since this is supposed to elaborate on a fictional character then we are obviously going to know some of his internal thoughts. Unfortunately, that's rarely the case with Palpatine as authors rarely give him an internal monologue, so sections which attempt to explain Palpatine's mindset and reasons for his actions are mostly unsourced and therefore unencyclopedic. There's way too much unnecessary wording to set the mood of certain scenes. As Lord Hydronium already pointed out, seven paragraphs for a one minute scene? Cull Tremayne 08:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. An encyclopedia would have that scene as "...enraged, Palpatine decided to destroy Skywalker. He hurled volley after volley of Sith lightning at the defenceless young Jedi, taunting him in the process. Humbled, Vader limped back to his master's side, at watched on as Palpatine cruelly, and coldly tortured his son. This image preyed on Vader's mind, as it reminded him of the similair confrontation with Mace Windu 23 years prior. In that moment, he renounced his life as a Sith Lord, and picked up Palpatine with his remaining hand. Screaming, Palpatine desperately tried to kill Vader, with bolts of lightning shooting off in an uncontrolled fashion. He managed to short out Vader's life support system, but the former Dark Lord persisted, and hurled Palpatine into the Death Star shaft, ending the evil dictator's life...for the first time."

Like that, only more compelling and with less spelling mistakes. ;) .... 08:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I've gotten to work on this, guys. While I'm not finished yet, if you examine the current page as opposed to previous ones, you'll see that I've made some significant reductions. Already I've been removing all the rhetorical questions save for a rare exception or two. There are more restructurings to come, and when they've happened, I'm sure you'll think it's more to your liking. In the "Fall of Chancellor Valorum" section, for example, the actor metaphor was removed without losing any quality at all.

The one issue I have to challenge is that when I described Palpatine's intent in killing Luke, and what was going on in his head, I wasn't making things up. Galaxy Guide 5: Return of the Jedi (p. 49) has his reaction to Luke refusing to turn to the dark side, and I used it nearly word for word (factoring in the fact that I can't just type it verbatim) and the ROTJ radio show (p. 176) has him saying that when he's killed Luke, Vader is supposed to toss him into the core shaft. All of that is canon. That doesn't mean I can't trim it all down to fighting weight, because I can, but don't make me lose it all when it's accurate. True, there aren't often looks inside Palpy's head, but when there are, let them stay. I don't know if I could live with the section being shortened to what FourDot is proposing, but I can get much closer to what he wants than it is now.

I think we can have a happy medium here. As long as no one is asking that facts or details be removed (and as I understand it, no one is), I can lose a few colorful metaphors and still think that we're all doing a good job here. It doesn't have to have the prose quality of a Radzinsky-written biography; if it has the quality of, say, the 9/11 Commission Report - which is all facts and no nonsense, but still acknowledged as being quality work - then you know what? I'll be fine with that. I'll just be trying a different way to get what I want, and in the process, FourDot and others on his side get what they want too. Everyone's happy. So if it's all right with the group, let me keep taking a crack at it over day or so. Once done, I don't think we'll have a need for further discussion about culling; at that point, I'm sure you'll be much more pleased. Sound good? Erik Pflueger 20px 16:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me just add one further thing: people have been careful to point out that though they have an issue with the way things are written, they like the writing in and of itself, and they have taken care to speak no ill of me. Everyone has said what they needed to say about the issue, and spoken plainly, but don't worry: no one ever hurt me in doing so - my feelings are not so brittle in the first place. I just want to tell you all that I'm deeply grateful for your being so considerate of me. This is why I want to be considerate of your needs in turn (that, and I just had my bachelor party. Nyuk, nyuk!). I'll be doing - and have already started doing - a lot of the culling you have asked for. As I said before, it'll be a happy medium for everyone. In the end, it might turn out to be an even better piece for it all, and in the end, that's what we all want. God bless! Erik Pflueger 20px 16:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Blast it, quit being so reasonable! Arguments over Palpatine's article are a Wookieepedia tradition! http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/9.gif -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 16:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I can't help it!!! I AM WHAT I AM!!! ;) Erik Pflueger 20px 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Wow, a week does makes a big difference... Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Surprised, Jack? Don't be. I'm not giving up everything; I still intend to get what I want out of this article. If I can do so in a way that makes the opposition happy as well, who does it hurt? None of us will lose anything important. It will be as long as we need, it will encompass all the information. And it will be well-written. We'll still have all our meat and potatoes; all they want is not so much gravy on top. You'll be getting a better and healthier cut of meat, not one so filled with fat and gristle. (Is anyone hungry yet? I am.) If I am fair to everyone here, as I think I am and as I'm sure you'll agree, then I have to grant that the article can always be improved, made better. That's why we're here. And since everyone's been so giving to me here, why shouldn't I give back? "There would be no change in our aims, just the methods we use to achieve them." Given time and effort, I can make it work. And we'll finally hear the end of all the complaints. Erik Pflueger 20px 23:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Wow, a week does makes a big difference This is politics Jack. [edward G. robinson]You wanted to play hard ball, and I played hardball, see? Nyah![/edward G. robinson] ;) .... 23:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm not up on my Robinson pictures. Which one were you quoting? And anyway, politics is give-and-take. As long as you give - and you have - I'll give too. You've surely already learned that about me. It's no sin to want both sides to be happy. When I did so in the past, I made good friends. Jack is the foremost example of this; he's pretty much the best friend I have here.

By the way, you may want to look at the subsection about Palpatine's first death that you mentioned. I think I've cut it down to fighting weight, and with a little more tweaking on my part, it'll read really well. Erik Pflueger 20px 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not even sure I was quoting Robinson. It's just that if I were talking to Jack in person, I would have done my Robinson impression. I was just fooling. .... 00:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If it was just a joke, that's fine. It's just important to me to make sure you know that you and Jack are not rivals, any more than you and I are. I'm not saying you were trying to get his goat; I just want to be sure you weren't, is all. There's no need for either of you to "play hardball." Even if it were otherwise, Jack is my friend and I would sooner have him treated respectfully than not. In any case, Robinson done with an Australian accent has to sound interesting... :) Erik Pflueger 20px 01:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Since I don't have enough time to read through this past week's events on this talk page, has a conclusion been reached on this topic? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Not so much that, as that I've decided that FourDot is right, up to a point. The article can be every bit as good as it has been, even if my prose style changes a little to accomodate those that have had differences. It depends on if I do it right. I'm not going to rewrite the thing from scratch, and I've not "backed down," so to speak. I'm just trying to be a responsible Wookieepedian. If I assume an absolutist position, I'm not leaving avenues open to improve my work. FourDot, in the end, will not get everything he wants either, but I think he will get enough of what he wants to satisfy him, and I myself will still be pleased with what I do; I believe in myself as a writer, after all. So why not give their suggestions a try? Consider it a nice challenge for me. If it doesn't work, if the majority thinks it isn't as good, I can always change it back. But until then, it hurts no one for me to give it a shot. Erik Pflueger 20px 03:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, we are still arguing, although, we've attracted some attention, and now, I'm not the only one asking for a change. And I wasn't trying to rile Jack, it's just that his little comment of "A lot has happened in a week" reminded me of some political satire...I can't remember what...probably Blackadder. Jack, you should go read back through all of the archived discussion - it's riveting!. Oh, and an Edward G. Robinson impression with an Australian accent might be great, I wouldn't know. We don't all talk like Steve Irwin (god rest his soul). And now Erik posted while I was, ruining my entire post. .... 03:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You know, it's funny you mention Irwin. Here in the US, Irwin has always been someone interesting, amusing and certainly educational to watch. But when I hear you, an Australian, speak of him, or when I see news reports from your country, I almost get the sense he's something of a national treasure, and was considered so even before his untimely death. Would you say that's accurate? And to be more accurate, we're really not arguing at this point, more like haggling over the shape of the eventual agreement. Arguing implies hostility, and we don't feel that. Erik Pflueger 20px 04:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        • No, this is more of a friendly debate. Here...feelings about Irwin were mixed. Some people despised him, because of the stereotypical image he presented to foreigners. Some people loved him for his preservation efforts. To put it into a Star Wars analogy - his fame was like Dark Empire. It split the fanbase, so to speak. I personally thought that his wildlife conservation efforts were admirable, but when I heard what his cause of death was, the first thing that crossed my mind was...well, he was asking for it. But full sympathy to his family and all - the media here still harps on about it. Anyway, Palpatine. I think that some of the fundamental errors, like the rhetorical questions, may have also filtered through into your other article, Erik. Beliert Valance, or something. Again, it's a fantatsic read, but the rhetorical questions really jarr at the encyclopedic tone. So you might want to have a bit of a recce on that one too. .... 04:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        • And I have a present for you, FourDot. I moved the Conclusions section to just above the Behind the Scenes section. See if that works for you. We'll need time to craft some concluding words to fill the gap left behind, but it may end up being better than what was there. Erik Pflueger 20px 04:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I saw that, and yes, I am fairly happy with the compromise. We'll lay that one to rest. .... 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
            • As far as Irwin goes, it's good to hear the opinion of someone on the scene, as it were. As far as the Valance article goes, I think the number of rhetorical questions is about two or three, tops. If they're de-rhetoricalized, it doesn't lose a thing. Let's see what I can do... Erik Pflueger 20px 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Overall, I thought the Valance article was well balanced - a very neat package, due to the fact that it would have had largely one contributor...you. But, as I say, that's not the case here, since different, (less talented), people contribute, such as with the Bothawui incident I cited. .... 04:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
                • I was right; only two of 'em. And they're gone, and the article's not hurt a bit. Of course, that's a lot simpler than doing the same to this article. But it's an encouraging thought. Erik Pflueger 20px 04:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • I must say, the Valance article was one of the most enjoyable ones to read when I was going through all the FAs. .... 05:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • I'm elated that you thought so, 4D. And the point I'm happy to express - which is probably the point you were trying to make to me - is that it loses absolutely nothing by having those changes made. It can still have an effective, punchy prose style without the relatively small things you wanted changed. As I said, it's encouraging for what I need to do here. As long as I can keep some of what I really like in the Palpatine article, I think I really can give you some of what you really want. And in the resulting middle ground, I think we can all be pleased with it. Erik Pflueger 20px 06:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • Well, I certainly think that the steps that you're taking with this article are the right ones. Glad you saw it (half) my way. ;) .... 06:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
                        • Happy, polite discussions resulting in productive compromises make me :-)! (Yeah, I've been observing this for awhile.) Atarumaster88 20px (Audience Chamber) 06:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
                          • Erik would make a fantastic bartender. .... 06:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
                            • Okay, I'd like to ask one question: Is this over? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
                              • Actually, I worked in a bar for two years - as an announcer, though, not as a bartender. And as far as I'm concerned, Jack, it's over, since I gave a little, and they gave a little in return. Unless 4Dot feels differently, or his comrades, we're done here. Now it remains just to do some tweaking, and that will take some time. But everyone acknowledges that we're on the right track. Erik Pflueger 20px 16:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this page is in a suitable state now. .... 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)