Entertainment things everyone else is wrong about, and you are right about.

[batguy]

Palpatine is a stupid villain. The character and the actor both are unintimidating and uninteresting. There's no depth in how he was written, and there is no gravity in his performance. Ian McDiarmid has the face of a slapstick comic relief character. That Palpatine has become the core of Star Wars above all other characters is really the final insult.

I totally see where you are coming from with that. But I don't think Lucas had much of a choice once he got past ANH and into ESB/ROTJ.

In terms of fleshing out a villain, Lucas had to blow most of that budget on Anakin/Vader. Then there had to be somebody else who was a whole notch more evil than Vader, for him to be seduced by and eventually rebel against.

I think it's impressive that Lucas had the foresight (or at least good instincts) to mention the "the Emperor" in ANH. That was before Lucas had really committed to making Vader be Luke's father (and thus, redeemable). Lucas was doing a pretty paint-by-numbers story in ANH with no serious plans for sequels yet. Standard procedure would have been to make Vader the king baddie. I mean, Skeletor doesn't report to a boss who is more evil than him.

 

[dascoyne]

I totally see where you are coming from with that. But I don't think Lucas had much of a choice once he got past ANH and into ESB/ROTJ.

In terms of fleshing out a villain, Lucas had to blow most of that budget on Anakin/Vader. Then there had to be somebody else who was a whole notch more evil than Vader, for him to be seduced by and eventually rebel against.

I think it's impressive that Lucas had the foresight (or at least good instincts) to mention the "the Emperor" in ANH. That was before Lucas had really committed to making Vader be Luke's father (and thus, redeemable). Lucas was doing a pretty paint-by-numbers story in ANH with no serious plans for sequels yet. Standard procedure would have been to make Vader the king baddie. I mean, Skeletor doesn't report to a boss who is more evil than him.

The Emperor in ANH and ESB was exactly what he had to be. But in ROTJ Ian was ridiculous and one of the many things that sank that film for me. And in the prequels he was still one dimensional, as if he was hired only for his "diabolical" laugh. There is nothing interesting about him. Palpatine in a nutshell is just an evil character who looks like a sideshow clown. He is Canio of Pagliacci without the pathos.

 

[Jodo]

What really killed me for Palpatine is the ROTS performance. Terrible acting, terrible writing, terrible visuals…Just an absolute terrible setup for Palpatine, generally.

 

[blewis17]

What really killed me for Palpatine is the ROTS performance. Terrible acting, terrible writing, terrible visuals…Just an absolute terrible setup for Palpatine, generally.

While I respect your opinion, I felt that Ian acted the part just fine, although the ROTS story was severely lacking... maybe it was more the PACING of the story that felt off.

But going back to the OT, the Emperor was one of the few redeeming characters in ROTJ for me. But I say that from my unique point of reference, as I saw ROTJ opening day in May 1983. Up until that point the Emperor was only briefly seen ONCE in the SW films (TESB), and that was as a hologram of a 79 year old elderly woman with super-imposed chimpanzee eyes, using Clive Revill's voice.

 

[Darth Lars]

What really killed me for Palpatine is the ROTS performance. Terrible acting, terrible writing, terrible visuals…Just an absolute terrible setup for Palpatine, generally.

And terrible makeup ... which was nominated for an Oscar. That's the moment when my illusions about the Oscars dropped.

 

[AJTaliesen]

T2 is terrible. Most of you liked it because you were kids, but it’s a mix of pandering, turning well thought out sci-fi into “Magic liquid” and completely breaking the self contained time loop that was the entire concept of the original.

It had really good marketing.

 

[OzReturner]

LOTR is the only example I can think of where the movies are better than the books. I can't stay awake reading those, and I've read some pretty dense, boring historical stuff.

 

[HeartBlade]

I totally see where you are coming from with that. But I don't think Lucas had much of a choice once he got past ANH and into ESB/ROTJ.

In terms of fleshing out a villain, Lucas had to blow most of that budget on Anakin/Vader. Then there had to be somebody else who was a whole notch more evil than Vader, for him to be seduced by and eventually rebel against.

I think it's impressive that Lucas had the foresight (or at least good instincts) to mention the "the Emperor" in ANH. That was before Lucas had really committed to making Vader be Luke's father (and thus, redeemable). Lucas was doing a pretty paint-by-numbers story in ANH with no serious plans for sequels yet. Standard procedure would have been to make Vader the king baddie. I mean, Skeletor doesn't report to a boss who is more evil than him.

Well the problem with OT and Palpatine is OT isnt a very complex story. It is a story of good versus evil with very clearly designated lines between good and evil (hence why people think Andor is good because it adds moral complexity in a previously completely good faction). Palpatine was the ultimate evil so was evil and irredeemable in that regard.

To be fair, Palpatine doesnt get much time to develop as a character in OT, the only real surprise being that Palpatine isnt some old codger but actually super powerful himself in being able to shock Luke with force lightning, the first time we see the force wielded that way. It reveals that the Emperor is not a figure-head but actually a very powerful being whom Vader rightfully feared.

Lucas did apparently plan to have Palpatine when he first wrote the story but was a completely different character. Although the "big bad," Palps was originally a farce, a wizard of Oz incompetent figurehead. I do think Palpatine actually being a mastermind (which we get see see in PT) and incredibly powerful was more rewarding but he should have stayed dead.

 

[greenmachines]

Well the problem with OT and Palpatine is OT isnt a very complex story. It is a story of good versus evil with very clearly designated lines between good and evil (hence why people think Andor is good because it adds moral complexity in a previously completely good faction). Palpatine was the ultimate evil so was evil and irredeemable in that regard.

To be fair, Palpatine doesnt get much time to develop as a character in OT, the only real surprise being that Palpatine isnt some old codger but actually super powerful himself in being able to shock Luke with force lightning, the first time we see the force wielded that way. It reveals that the Emperor is not a figure-head but actually a very powerful being whom Vader rightfully feared.

Lucas did apparently plan to have Palpatine when he first wrote the story but was a completely different character. Although the "big bad," Palps was originally a farce, a wizard of Oz incompetent figurehead. I do think Palpatine actually being a mastermind (which we get see see in PT) and incredibly powerful was more rewarding but he should have stayed dead.

Palpatine was greater in theory and assumption than on screen. It was his use of the common communist revolution tactics, divide, demoralize, and create emergencies that gives him the appearance of being a mastermind but we are fed this as backstory and seldom directly from the lines of the character. But as you point out, that was OT. In the sequels this utterly falls away and we get clone magic surprise pudding because the writers had no skill whatsoever. This leaves us with only the onscreen depiction with about as much forced storyline as a standard Terry Brooks novel. And lest we forget, with our new kinetic bombardment, light speed jump ram tech, we can just set that last secret sith planet path jump to planet core..... and go. No need for the cavalry, just hit Palps with one good light jump...... because if canon can't be canon, let it be cannon.

 

[pengbuzz]

T2 is terrible. Most of you liked it because you were kids, but it’s a mix of pandering, turning well thought out sci-fi into “Magic liquid” and completely breaking the self contained time loop that was the entire concept of the original.

It had really good marketing.

Hey, be fair now! We also had a GnR video too!

 

[Joek3rr]

This might be a hot one coming from me considering my past on here....

The Clone Wars series (2008) is way overhyped. (including me) And it fits with the films about as nicely as a square peg in a round hole.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

'Terminator' -

Adult John Connor was built up too much. No major onscreen portrayal is ever gonna live up. Notice that Cameron avoided showing him as an adult in T1/T2.


What we see & know about the future war from T1/T2 . . . Cameron did not leave a detailed blueprint for a slam-dunk hit movie. He left a very brief plot summary and a couple of Super Bowl ads.

Tons of bad movies have great concepts. Tons of bad movies have great trailers. A good Terminator future war movie might happen someday but it has yet to be created.

Easily explained as it was told from a POV who idolized him, so not really a completely accurate portrayal of the real man. A movie could have explored that, while still showing what made him so easy to idolize. He was a beacon of light in a dark future. Naturally people around him will project all their hopes and dreams on him, and he then has to struggle to live up to it, so as not to disappoint them. We see that all the time... so a great story could be written to show that struggle. If done by a great writer.

T2 is terrible. Most of you liked it because you were kids, but it’s a mix of pandering, turning well thought out sci-fi into “Magic liquid” and completely breaking the self contained time loop that was the entire concept of the original.

It had really good marketing.

Agree to a point. I think it is a great movie, but it does trample over things established in T1. Still find the T1 story to be superior to T2. And would have loved to have seen a future war movie following that without including T2.

12 Monkeys - the movie:
I am not sure if this is public consensus, but everyone I speak to about the 12 Monkeys movie all say that the scientist in the end was there to stop the spread of the virus and save everyone. I always argue that she didn't care about the past, and as stated many times during the movie, they cannot change the past and they only wanted a pure strain of the virus to save their own present and be able to go topside again. I don't know why everyone thinks the people from the future was there to stop the virus... only Bruce Willis' character attempted that... and if they all had that agenda... why did they try to stop him or work against him so much... making his struggle make no sense if they were all on the same page? Makes no sense.

They couldn't change the past. That was the whole point of the movie... and the fact that the main character saw himself die when he was a kid. And then the TV series is all about changing the past and stopping the virus. So maybe it IS public consensus that people interpret the movie wrong... or... the people making the TV-series didn't care. I dunno.

It's kinda the same issue between T1 and T2. In T1 you couldn't change the past and what happened was always supposed to happen for the future to happen. T2 threw in a wrench in the system by making it seem the future could be changed. Though at least the original ending left it open for interpretation - I always interpreted the attack on Cyberdyne as the thing that drove Skynet to launch the nukes, when it became self-aware: it learned someone had tried to kill it before it was even born (mirroring John's story) and it acted out of fear trying to stop it from ever happening again.

 

[drusselmeyer]

Oz is not really one of us. Oz is the imposter.

 

[drusselmeyer]

Die another day was one of the best bond films ever... Until about the time Halle shows up! Still right about that. Don't let her near the car! Ooops, too late.

More Star Wars might be a good idea if it doesn't deviate from it's core foundation.

I was wrong about:

Jack Nicholson is really too old to play The Joker.

The new technology will make special effects so much better.

 

[pengbuzz]

Watching tv will rot your brain.

 

[drusselmeyer]

Is that supposed to be a right or a wrong?

 

[Psab keel]

Dave Filoni is an overrated hack.

 

[Usagi Pilgrim]

Dave Filoni is an overrated hack.

One of the many lessons he learned directly from George himself.

 

[Psab keel]

Yeah I think he got a big head in large part due to his direct apprenticeship under George.

 

[Usagi Pilgrim]

Yeah I think he got a big head in large part due to his direct apprenticeship to George.

My question has always been, for both of them, did THEY hype themselves, or were they just put on a pedestal due to their creations?

I'll be the first to admit if I'm wrong, but I've never seen anything Filoni has said in an arrogant fashion, but I can see where just saying "George told me..." or "George said..." will rub some the wrong way, but those instances were either him answering a question or explaining a choice.