Why did Palpatine even have to bother I don't know if you noticed, George.
#1
Posted 25 April 2005 - 11:36 PM
ignoring the fact that the Chancellor was about to say something decisive and politiciany, then the bureaucrat says something in front of the whole senate, he stammers something lame and no one suspects foulplay.
If the bureaucrats were controlling Velorum, and the trade federation controlled the bureaucrats, and Palpatine controlled the Trade Federation, then Palpatine was already in charge.
Also - why did the Senate suddenly vote to impeach Velorum - ignoring that Amidala was able to simply ask for the vote, but if Palpatine was the one who tied the Senate up in procedures - then it was Palpatine who was weakening the republic, not Velorum - so why vote out Velorum for Palpatine.
George Lucas mortgaged character development in the prequels for political intrigue - and he did a shoddy job of it.
Amidala trusts Palpatine - she accepts his spoon-fed lines, impeaches Velorum, and is happy when he becomes Chancellor - then, ten years later - despite her firsthand experience of the kind of crap that can happen when the Republic is unable to provide military assistance, she moves against the Military Creation act - despite the fact that its originator is her old friend and perhaps mentor Palpatine.
Then she turns her politics on its head, when she takes a holiday to wear leather and be seduced by flea-riding nightmare-infested stalkers (goes on leave for her own protection after threat of assasination by a bounty hunter hired to hire a bounty hunter to get a droid to get a worm to bite her in her sleep under the watchful eye of Anakin Skywallker), and she leaves behin - to act as her representative, the representative of the Gungans to the Naboo - a politician and diplomat with ten years experience who is just as dumb as the last time we met him and wanted him to burn in hell - Jar Jar Binks, who reverses her actions and grants emergency powers to Palpatine, who uses them to pass the Military Creation Act.
Strange, no?
#3
Posted 26 April 2005 - 05:24 AM
- J m HofMarN on the Sand People
#4
Posted 26 April 2005 - 01:07 PM
#5
Posted 26 April 2005 - 07:14 PM
"Jar Jar, you can take command while I'm away, but remember, do not completely go against the sum total of my beliefs."
or maybe
"Jar Jar, I'm leaving you to fill my senate seat. Since I have never had any reason to trust your judgement I'll give you a position paper so your backwards ass will know whats going on."
I mean, really. You'd think one of them would have had the sense to make such a conversation happen.
Also, she says "I should not have come back" so she's apparently been away for a long time but still able to vote. Could she not have spoken to the senate via hologram instead of putting a creature with no intelligence in her place?
And why is Amidala opposed to the military? On what grounds? Was her planet not just invaded and "thousands killed" and millions imprisoned? Would not a strong republic military help with that? Did she not shoot a bunch of people while storming into the viceroy's chambers on Naboo?
She seems like a piss poor pacifist to me.
Quote
#6
Posted 26 April 2005 - 08:27 PM
Why?
Well we realise that pacifism is the way to go - having a military is wrong.
What makes you think this?
Well there was an unprovoked attack on my planet when I was fourteen, and we only had a tenuous alliance with some amphibious rabbits, my personal guard, a squadron of fighters and two Jedi and we were only able to win because of a total deus ex machina when some kid blew away the control ship and even with the deus ex machina we still had catastrophic losses so you can see we shouldn't have a military.
Huh? Wha? Buh? Rah?
It doesn't make any sense... He traded people for politics but he knows nothing of politics.
#7
Posted 26 April 2005 - 11:20 PM
By the way, excellent post, Mnsymone.
There's also another reason why Palpatine needn't have bothered... because if what we're led to believe is going to happen in Episode III DOES happen, then apparently, Palpatine could have just killed all the Jedi and anyone else any time he felt like it.
I think it'd be great if they could show his take-over in the way it was portrayed in "Episode III: A Lost Hope"...
"Instead of announcing my candicacy for re-election, I am announcing that you are all... (putting on his emperor hood) ... morons."
That would just be brilliant.
#9
Posted 27 April 2005 - 07:42 AM
And yet gushers still think this stuff is great! The movie would be better without it. It would've been better if we had a shot of them simply walking out of the senate saying to someone else, "We lost the vote," or "they've elected Palpatine to be Chancellor." (Which still wouldn't make that much sense!)
Palpatine should've been a meek little Chancellor already. We really should be suspecting NOTHING from this guy. He should be milquetoast as he was described in the novelisation, appearing as if HE is the one being controlled, and instead have Bail and Amidala angry at the bureaucrats for doing so... i.e., Palpatine props up some decoys to deflect attention from himself.
Sheesh. There are so many easy and simple ways to approach this than this blind stabbing at "political intrigue."
Battle for the Galaxy--read the "other Star Wars"
All I know is I haven't seen the real prequels yet.
#10
Posted 27 April 2005 - 09:02 AM
God, it drives me crazy when people go on about the political sub-plot in the Prequels being 'brilliant' and 'complex'. No it isn't. When I get the time, I'm going to write a list of all the ways Palpatine's 'clever' plot would have failed if the entire Republic Senate and Jedi Order had an atom of intelligence between them.
- J m HofMarN on the Sand People
#11
Posted 27 April 2005 - 12:05 PM
Battle for the Galaxy--read the "other Star Wars"
All I know is I haven't seen the real prequels yet.
#12
Posted 27 April 2005 - 02:33 PM
Now since the attack was blamed in connection with Padme being from Naboo I can assume that no other senators had been threatened for their views on the whole military creation act. This seems to indicate that only she was apposed to it. So out of that entire CGIed room of floating pods where you can't see the ceiling or the floor only one senate seat was against it? A vote of 99% in favour of having an army and it didn't pass? What kind of democracy is Lucas trying to run here? Because where I come from a vote of several thousand to one is well above the minimum needed to be a majority and guess what Gerogie boy in a democracy majority wins! The Republic gets its army and the whole plot is wrapped up in two minutes flat.
If she had been part of a group that was getting support for not having the act pass and it was about of fifty, fifty split between those who were for and those who were against in the senate then it would make more sense. Of course that still doesn't explain why she wouldn't want the Republic to have an army in the first place.
This post has been edited by The Other: 27 April 2005 - 02:39 PM
#13
Posted 11 June 2005 - 02:42 AM
I like his character- hes devious, manipulative and conniving. I like the way Lucas made him both the good and the bad guy right from the start. I like the way he plays the Federation, and everyone else for that matter, for suckers. Too much is made of the `politics` of these films. The actual political scenes amount to about 5 minutes of screen time. The way in which Palpatine slowly comes into power is great, the actual political macinations of these films are flawed (although bear in mind that they are meant for kids to understand), but they still work as long as you dont put your mind to ripping them to pieces.
No, it was assumed that it was because she was opposed to the army, but then its later revealed that its Nute Gunray whos behind it. It says nothing about other senators not being against it too.
Fair enough. Although you could say that not only wasnt he the shiniest tool in the box, the situation had escalated then to the point where it seemed like war was inevitable, and without an army the Republic was going to get a kicking. Its a bit convenient I know, but I like the irony of it.
She thought that having an army would push the Republic into a civil war.
No, she shot a bunch of droids. the Feds went unharmed.
The problems on Naboo werent because there was no military assistance, but because the senate was ineffectual. Even if there was a military presence available, whats to stop rival factions getting a bigger army to fight that one? Isnt that eventually what happened? I think the message seems to be that a military presense doesnt equal safety. Of course, there were a bunch of behind the scenes things going on that she didnt know about.
This post has been edited by jariten: 11 June 2005 - 02:48 AM
#14
Posted 11 June 2005 - 10:39 AM
1) The Republic has no army
2) Many of the planets supporting the Republic has no army
3) Palpatine, through his puppets the TF/ Separatists, can build a droid army whenever he wants
4) Palpatine can build a clone army whenever he wants too.
So what is Palpatine's devious plan to take over the Republic? He builds the droid army, then he builds the clone army, and then he has the two fight each other! And since the defenders of the Republic have no army of their own they can do nothing. Brilliant!
#15
Posted 26 May 2006 - 09:34 AM