Or maybe just someone who prefers the way the Emperor was interpreted in Empire as opposed to all of the other films. That calm, menacing emperor was better than the silly Mr. Burns fogy of Jedi and the prequels, and there are plenty who agree.

And there are many, many more who disagree. It doesn't matter what you prefer. Ian McDiarmid is the Emperor, and he was far better and far more menacing than the silly looking emperor in ESB. The ESB emperor wasn't menacing at all. Non-threatening and stupid looking is more like it. Ian McDiarmid just plain rules.

Emmanuel Lewis as Yoda? Nah...now Gary Coleman on the other hand.... "Wha'chu talkin' 'bout Luke?"

Oh com'on. Do you really believe that? That people actually prefer the brief holographic appearance in TESB as the definitive Emperor, when you have basically a whole movie of Ian McDiarmid's emperor in ROTJ, plus Palapatine's appearance in presumably all three prequals?

That would be like saying that people prefer the bad CGI Jabba in ANH-SE as the definitive Jabba as opposed to the ROTJ Jabba and the decidedly better CGI Jabba in TPM.

You know, I was really upset when I heard that Lucas was going to colorize the SW series for the DVD release. That's just wrong. It always looked just fine on my (B&W) TV, and I don't think he should change a thing for any of the namby-pamby joe sixpacks who won't buy it unless it's in color.

uh, i prefer the original Emperor from ESB by a WIDE mile over Ian- especially Ian as Emp in ROTJ for exactly the reason that Rivero gave.

Ian 's Emp is basicially the George Lucas school of filmmaking 101- "be very explicit"
if you are supposed to be a big bad evil character- you must cackle and hiss and play the part so a blind 4 yr old can see that you are the bad guy.
(this is the same asthetic that tells Lucas "han is a good guy so i can't possibly have him shoot first- or- Jabba is mentioned in the catina...must show Jabba immediately after that-or- Vader leaves cloud city to go to his star destroyer, must show him exiting...it's yet another sign of how this once fine filmmaker has lost sense of nuance and the power of subetly and allusion- he no longer subverts unnecessary details...he tediously elaborates them in full cgi relief)
yes, for some reason that kind of obvious play acting seems to resonate with the seeming majority of fans, but i will never enjoy it more than the glimpse of the cold, distant, subdued authority that Vader bowed before originally.
i was expecting a new, rich character to be fleshed out in Jedi and what i got was a one dimensional cartoon villian
"hisssss...join me or die....cackle...i will make you turn eviiiiilll...oh i am so deliciously bad...are you evil yet?"

groan.
i keep waiting for Hansel and Gretal to stumble by so the emperor can pop them in the oven.

As long as Lucas does'nt take out the dancer's boob shot in ROTJ, I well be a happy man.

Then you would prefer Lucas edit out McDiarmid and replace him with that abomination in ESB, right? I'm not surprised you like that emperor in ESB. That emperor wasn't evil or foreboding or threatening. He was a complete waste of time and space. He might as well have told Vader to have a nice day when he was finished. He wouldn't turn anyone to the dark side. He would have put Luke to sleep. No thanks, I'll take the threatening emperor everytime.

Besides, it's like I said, nobody cares what you want. Ian McDiarmid is the Emperor, not that goofy looking thing in ESB, and it's not even up for debate. That's why the change is being made. There are bad changes and good changes. This isn't one of the bad ones.

By the way, pick a new argument. You keep rehashing the same ones over and over in every thread. We know you think Lucas is a no talent hack. You can have your opinion. We don't need to hear it in every thread. Move on. It's obvious you get no enjoyment out of Star Wars, so move on like rational people do. Stop dwelling on that which you don't enjoy.

uh, I think you must be the ONLY one in the entire world that considers/prefers the 3-minute holographic emperor in TESB to be the quintessential emperor. 99.9999% of the people in this world consider and accept Ian McDiarmid's emperor. For two very simple reasons. His portrayal of the role in ROTJ, and his portrayal of Sen. Palpatine in the prequals.

So in order for you, ckolchak to be be 100% satisfied, Lucas would have to CG change the emperor in ROTJ and the prequals to the same FEMALE actress that was in TESB. However, you don't like what Lucas did, by changing just the one single, short appearance in TESB to the well established Ian McDiarmid role. However, this is the logical choice, which of course confuses you. I understand. If I too were an irrational person, logic would confuse me as well.

so Terrell, what you are saying is - that you walked out of your first viewing of Empire thinking "wow..good movie, but if only they had cast someone different as the emperor...he really stunk up the part and that scene sucked because of him"?

huh..wha?
just about every kid i knew back in 1980 that talked about the film, thought it was a great scene as it was.

hey, the guy got replaced for the sequel- happens all the time- you happen to love the new actor and the way he was directed to be transparent and obvious about his intentions 100% of the time (in front of Luke).
works for you and Mike...that's great.

it didn't for me.
it was one point among many of the production of that film that i felt was beneath the bar that had been elevated with Empire.


if Ian had been cast way back for Empire (George unfortunately lacked the technology in 1980 to do this) then i'm sure i would have accepted him immediately as the gold standard...but he didn't and as a fan of the movies i was left with two slightly different interpretations of the character.
i'm just making a subjective, comparative judgment between the implications of one presence and the realization of another.

two points
1) you guys keep harping on the emperor being played by a woman.
would you please get off this.
the character is presented as a slightly vauge, discretely lit transmission with a clearly lower octive stenatorian voice.
the mere fact that a woman may have been in the shadow draped suit and prosthetic appliances doesn't mean jack-
i found the Ian emperor to have a much higher (re: woman like) voice...a much rounder face compared to the longer, more angular ESB emp (curves=feminine/angles=masculine).
to me Ian has always come across as the Emperor as a twisted, hunched old grandma.

that is my personal rational for my contrary opinion.
i appreciate that the character of the emperor/palpatine has been finally a bit more fleshed out thanks to the sequels- but i would have glady traded the 6+ hours of *bliss* those provide to have just one truly satisfactory followup to the themes and complications embellished in Empire.
ROTJ just wasn't it.
for me.

2) and no replacing Ian in ROTJ would not satisfy me. the film has deeper, more fundemental problems than just the casting of one part- to me.
i fail to enjoy the film for much the same reason i fail to enjoy other 'popular' films.

i'm sorry.
i didn't realize the last post was expressing confusion.
i fully understand the change, but i don't appreciate it.
i realize many do.


and just to follow up- i find seduction to be more evil and more threatening than to overtly state your objective the way they have the emp do in Jedi.
there would have been- even if the rest of the film had remaind the same- ways to change the context of way the emperor was trying to corral Luke to the dark side.
if he did in fact view Vader as weakening and Luke as material for a much stronger, longer lasting protege- he could have more strongly set up Vader as the fall guy and himself as Lukes ally...instead of just basically saying-"i'm evil, join me"
again, the film takes a bland, linear progression when the previous film was a little more oblique and offered a little more to chew on.

geez- sorry for being a fan that actually gives the films critical thought instead of just fawningly lapping up everything thats presented as is.

Of course not. That was not the argument at all. But Ian McDiarmid is the definitive Emperor of Star Wars. It's not even debateable. I'll state again, the emeperor in ESB was not threatening, foreboding, or perceptibly evil. It didn't ruin the movie though. It was a small part. Ian McDiarmid was evil in spades. I think if you're going to play an iconic, evil character, you better not play it straight laced. Otherwise, you're not threatening or evil. You're just there. Not to mention the ESB emperor looked horrid.

For continuity's sake, the emperor in ESB needs to be replaced because she/he looks and sounds absolutely nothing like the emperor in all of the other SW films. Simple as that. It's a good change, as long as the scene close to what was always there.

That's funny considering it was a woman in the makeup in ESB.

Actually, I'd say just the opposite. The ESB emperor is more angular because it's a woman playing the part. Her thinner face makes it look more feminine. Look from the bottom of the eyes all the way down to the end of the chin. It looks more feminine in the ESB emperor.

Oh come now. That is a gross, oversimplification of the throne room sequence. It is far more complex than you're giving it credit for being. You're basically arguing against the ROTJ, rather than arguing for the ESB emperor. Palpatine did in fact set up Vader as the fall guy. Remember, only two there are, a master and an apprentice. Vader was always the fall guy. Palpatine had to foresee that Luke would prevail. That was his plan. Not only was that his plan, but setting the trap was designed to push Luke over the edge. Palpatine was always in complete control in Jedi, up until the point Luke defied him.

I think you've imagined all of this in your head. There is nothing there as far as the ESB emperor goes. You want to talk about a bland approach to a character, look no further. In fact, Vader did all the thinking for him in that scene.

I'm not saying you can't like one over the other. But this is a good change for continuity. Not only that, it gets rid of that godawful look the emperor has in ESB.

This accusation needs to stop. I've never fawningly lapped up anything, ever. I'm just not as hardcore about changes such as these. There are 4-5 changes I don't like and we all know what they are. But what else is there to do but accept it. In the end it's not enough to make me go hardcore and refuse to buy the DVDs. Come September, I'll be watching the DVDs. Come September, you probably won't because you can't look past or accept any changes.

actually i've come to grips with the realization that yes, i will be buying this set after all.
these were some extraorinarily influential films to me growing up and i haven't watched Empire since its SE release in '97.
i've caught ANH once or twice on cable since then, and it was during one of these viewings where i realized i actively disliked quite a few of the 'improvments'.
so i'm basically going to be eager to sit down with these discs in my HT- only to be fast forwarding thru what i feel are intrusive alterations, just to get a taste of the unadulterated, unprocessed essence of something i used to love.
what i'm going to be buying in Sept (or actually Oct since i will be on the road when these hit) are discs containing the trailers for these films...extended, extra long 40+ minute trailers.

i used to own the super8 condensed version of Empire which came out to about 28 minutes or so, and i enjoyed it enormously. i'm hoping that i can be satisfied with a not-quite-as condensed version of these now.
it's in that tragic spirit that i'll be buying them.

because ultimately, these things are going to sell anyway. there is really no way- financially to send the filmmaker a message as to how i as a consumer/customer would like to be served when i lay out my money for one of his products.
the only recourse any of us really have is to vent and howl on boards like this.

like pooping or belching is to eating- i see that as a natural process when you consume something of this nature.

as for the Emperor- i guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
while i think i have already exhaustively detailed my opinions on the matter-
i would just make one more observation as to which one is more evil, more threatening, etc...
the function of the emperors character in his appearence in ESB is really not to be either evil or threatening.
he is privately contacting a subordinate and giving him urgent, important information.
in the film you see the way two major imperial figures deal with their subordinantes differently.
the emperor is presented as a rather vauge character, not really menacing, just eerie (the altered features that you can only glimpse in mostly shadows, etc) - by contrast Vader comes across as dynamically swift, decisive, and brutal.

i honestly believe that the emperor was utilized the way he was in that shot because he was originally not supposed to be (the resolved main villian) in ROTJ.
as Kurtz has said the original intention was to leave the final conflict with the Empire itself until the last trilogy.
this flies in the face of comments from the lord & master, but i honestly just can not accept anything he says anymore as anything more than "this is what he says today".

that's not lucas bashing- i can point to plenty of published material that never got contradicted once in the wake of the first 3 films, that is constantly contradicted now with the appelation "i always intended it to be that way".

I was always under the impression that the emperor in ESB was Alec Guiness in makeup. I could swear that I remember reading that way back then in the Star Wars fan club news letter...maybe Im just on crack!

Umm...no it wasn't.

Yep. Woman's face, with monkey eyes and Clive Reveill voicing.

Is there anyway to verify this? Website etc...

"A New Hope was not added until "81" rerelease

One thing thats always got to me is why people complain about changes in the visual effects but say nothing about altering the mono and stereo tracks to digital 5.1 or 6.1. If you are such a purist changes in the audio tracks should piss you off too. just a thought...

So you're going to buy just to spite George Lucas, so that you can sit an watch them over the years to come while cursing Lucas 'till your heart's content.

Right. There is practically nothing the consumer can do that would influance the sale of this release. The number of people who will not buy in protest is miniscule compared to those who will buy them. After all, the Star Wars Trilogy has been the number one requested DVD since the format hit the market in '97. And now that it's coming, there's nothing that will stop sales.

So you'll be giving this release the TriumphTM treatment, then? That's nice.

OK, here's what I don't get. You keep stating that the TESB emperor was more evil, etc... Can you tell us how you could possibly get this feeling from such a short appearance, and one that is shrouded in a lousey 1980's-tech hologram?

You can't tell me that when Darth Sidious (Palpatine), in TPM, said, "Wipe them out...all of them." that he wasn't the quintessential evil SOB.

Maybe so, but what does that have to do with the way the character and Ian, the actor eventually portrayed him?

You mean, Episodes VII-IX?

Quite frankly, I'd love to see these made using the Dark Empire story-line.

another point is yes it will sell a ton no matter what changes or lack of changes there are. If Lucas and co are so greedy why are they spending the time, effort and, money to update the trilogy when people would buy them in any form regardless.

If that was a truely legitamit argument, then viewing these films (at home) on anything other than their original film elements would be a complaint.

First it was Beta-Max, then VHS, then LD, and now DVD, and then shortly, we'll have HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.

DVD has the better picture and sound quality. So why not improve those. And since DVDs have the capacity for multiple audio tracks, the easiest solution is to include the original audio tracks, beit mono or Hi-Fi stereo.

Why bother to "improve" anything?

That's a stupid question. Simply put, Lucasfilm wants to at least put out a close to finished product on this format this time around.

Do you want to continue to buy copies of these down the road because some new changes are or aren't there?

Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of buying the Star Wars Trilogy. I bought at least six versions of these films on VHS. The pre-THX P&S and WS, the THX P&S and WS, the SE-WS, the re-release SE-WS, because my VCR ate my original TESB-SE.

So I'm hoping this is the last time I have to buy this trilogy, until the next format.

Mike, i just don't know where you're coming up with this. nowhere in the passage that you quoted did i mention buying them for any other reason than to enjoy the parts that i have always liked and the changes that don't distract me- and i will be fast frwding/ skipping the parts that do.
i could care less about what Lucas thinks (really- i don't have a high regard anymore for his creative choices as pertaining to these films and i certainly don't care about what he thinks about anything else)

Quote:

OK, here's what I don't get. You keep stating that the TESB emperor was more evil, etc... Can you tell us how you could possibly get this feeling from such a short appearance, and one that is shrouded in a lousey 1980's-tech hologram?

1) they were bordering an asteroid belt- the spotty transmission/hologram was perfectly in keeping with this situation.
yeah Vader says "move the fleet so we can send a clear transmission"- but the fact that is not completely clear gives the scene a little more verisimiltude.
2) its not so much that the ESB was more evil, etc... it was that i found the Emperor part (and performance ) in ROTJ to be so one note and thin and obvious.
by contrast, ESB contained a glimpse of the ultimate Imperial authority figure...the personage before whom even the ultra black hearted villian Vader bows down to.
he wasn't cackling or sneering...he was simply large and authoritative and vaders resonse to him was what gave the character it's weight.
to me, that quick scene implied what could have been a more interesting nuanced character than what we eventually got.

you do know that they are also, along with inserting Ian, changing the dialouge in this scene?

Quote:

You can't tell me that when Darth Sidious (Palpatine), in TPM, said, "Wipe them out...all of them." that he wasn't the quintessential evil SOB.

yes, i agree that was a great line (and a very iconic line reading).
the problem for someone like me is- you have to sit thru more than 1 and 1/2 hours of Jake Lloyd and Jar-Jar and midichlorians to get to those few nice bits w/ Ian.
once the "real deals" are on the shelves, the prequels will have a lot less pull for a lot of people.
as much as i enjoy some of the sequences in AOTC, the characters here just do not have the same capacity to draw me is the way the OT did.
as nice as a demo disc as that film is- i will be pulling it out far, far less after 9/21

This discussion is perhaps moot. Because I imagine if Ian McDiarmid played the part in ESB originally, then the scene would play exactly the same as it always has. But I just don't see much there, because the scene is not very long and we really don't see enough of the emperor to know how he would have been played. It's certainly not a bad scene by any means, other than the makeup effects were pretty horrendous.

Trust me. It was an older woman in makeup playing the part of the Emperor in ESB. They superimosed monkey eyes over her eyes to achieve the look. It's well documented. Clive Revell, who sounds an awful lot like Alec Guiness, did the voice-over.

True! If 60,000 signatures couldn't make a difference, what amounts to a small boycott won't either. Besides, Lucas will probably release the originals after he's milked these new ones.

I gotta say I too preferred the ESB emperor. BUT, I also am in favor of putting Ian in now. Looking forward to this release - only two months to go!