Saga Got a question? Ask it here

Just out of curiosity, when did it become apparent that Palpatine and Sidious could have been one and the same (before we found out the truth)?

I can't remember when the thought entered my mind, but when exactly was it first hinted that the Supreme Chancellor of the Republic and the Sith Mastermind lurking in the shadows were the same person?

 

(The line being spoken over this shot is from Mace Windu - "But which one was destroyed, the master or the apprentice?")

For anyone going into the PT blind, this was probably the first deliberate hint in-film, although Palps' characterisation in TPM was pretty slimy anyway.

Of course, it had been publicly known since May 12, 1977, when the first SW novel was released, nearly two weeks before the film premiered:

 

It was immediately apparent to me the moment the film portrayed him as having two personas.

 

I also think it's an open question how much it was really meant as a "twist". I first realized it almost immediately after TPM when my dad told me they had the same nose.

 

It's just that TPM, AotC and "The Clone Wars" all gave the impression the idea was for the fans to keep guessing who Sidious was and/or what his connection with Palpatine was

 

Given that it wasn't a secret at all amongst existing SW fans, I'm not sure how much attention GL gave to it being a twist or revelation for new viewers. The actual 'reveal' in ROTS didn't really come across as such, but that might be due to my own perception of the way it plays.
I do recall a work colleague mentioning after TPM that he thought that 'the Senator guy' would have something to do with the evil Empire of the OT, but he certainly didn't connect him with the Emperor of ROTJ or Sidious in TPM.

By AOTC, it's pretty obvious Palpatine is up to no good, and it's not much of a stretch to connect him with the hooded Sidious of TPM. You've also got a certain 1983 acting credit on Ian McDiarmid's resume that gives the game away.

 

I realised immediately even at 9 because I knew that the Emperor's name was 'Palpatine'.

Then I thought it was some kind of misdirection and that while Palpatine the senator was the same person as the Emperor, that there might be a twist where Sidious was a different character because otherwise everything was a bit obvious.

Turns out I was wrong.

 

It was known even before actually, as SW novel was published in November 12, 1976... 6 months before the movie was released.

 

I knew that the Emperor's name was Palpatine, but for the longest time I assumed that Sidious was a completely different individual who would eventually use some kind of Force power to take over his body and then become Emperor. Then, a while after AOTC came out, it occurred to me that if Palpatine were to lower his voice a bit, it would sound like a lot like a certain other character...

 

I figured Sidious was an apprentice or something. Too obvious that it was Palpatine.

 

As I said, I thought/hoped it would head in this direction.

 

Here is a question that has been around in my head for some time now; What does the fact that Anakin Skywalker was a creation of the Force signify?

For one, it implies that the Force has its own will, something that the only the Jedi seem to believe, whilst the Sith do not. But, Anakin was a creation of the Force, so that he would bring balance to the Force. In other words, the Force itself created him to fulfill this purpose.

But then there is the problem of bringing balance to the Force. What does that mean?

To me, balance means that dark is equal to light. But in ROTJ, Vader and Sidious die; the last two remaining Sith Lords and servants of the Dark Side. Thus, there is imbalance. There is only light and no dark. The movies imply that this state is considered as balanced.
So, by balance to the Force, did GL mean that there would be no evil. That seems like imbalance to me and a wrong use of the word.

If we take GL’s theory that the Force is out of balance whenever there is evil in the Galaxy, then the Force aligns itself always with the Jedi. If Anakin was fathered by the Force to bring balance, meaning killing all the Sith, then the Force prefers the Jedi. If it did, which means that the Force had a will of its own, then why do Sith possess the Force? Since it favours the Jedi, why not prevent the Sith from ever obtaining it?

 

Anakin was not fathered by the Force in the sense that you think. He was the result of Darth Plagueis manipulating midi-chlorians in order to pervert the Jedi's prophecy.

 

The Darth Plagueis novel suggests that Plagueis himself was in fact worried about the possibly that The Force created Anakin in response to his meddling.

 

Another question: Why did Owen and Beru raised Luke as a nephew?

They could have easily pretended to be the parents of Luke, saving themselves from having to make up a story about Luke's father.
Is there an actual in-universe explanation about this?

 

Perhaps they were concerned that the neighbors would notice Beru was never pregnant? After all, the homestead wasn't totally isolated.

 

I have to say, it's hard to tell what the level of abilities are for Sidious/Palpatine's apprentices

When Darth Maul first appeared in TPM, he behaved like a mindlessly Assassin that was obedient only to Sidious and did everything he was told without question or compromise. But in The Clone Wars tv show, he was portrayed as a cunning criminal mastermind who preferred to plan first rather than just attack. His intelligence almost sort of rivaled Sidious' actually.

As Anakin Skywalker, Darth Vader was portrayed as being a pretty good leader (in the TV shows i mean), but in every movie he appeared in as the cybernetic Sith Lord, he's been nothing but the Ubu to Sidious' Ra's Al' Ghul (a field leader who's actions are influenced by the people higher up than him). The only exception to this is TESB, where he was clearly the Big Bad.

Count Dooku was undeniably the mastermind during his appearance in AotC and in both Clone Wars shows; he was clearly the one running things and he didn't even care who knew it.

 

I would say Evil is the essence of imbalance.

 

Yes. I'm not so sure that it's a balance between light and dark, or that there even is such a thing as a light side of the Force. I think there's the Force in balance, which is what the Jedi use, and the dark side of the Force. More like neutrality and evil than good and evil.

 

Interesting idea.

It is called Light and Dark but yet no one in the Sith or Jedi is truly shown to be wholly Evil or Good. Simply that the Jedi label themselves and the Sith so.

 

But is it? Maybe in the Mortis episodes, but I don't think the words "light side" are ever uttered in the six films, are they? There's the Force, the living Force, and the dark side. Maybe Yoda's "luminous" could count as an on-screen mention of a light side, but that's a slender reed.

 

All right actually in the film they only mention the Dark Side basically to pass judgement that Sith are Evil as far as I recall. But, I meant that here in the fandom most 'claim' the Jedi are of the Light. I actually dispute that. Just as I do that Sith are Evil simply for opposing Jedi.

 

The Sith aren't "simply opposing Jedi".

They are also orchestrating wars, like the clone wars - among other things.

 

The main reason why the Sith are branded Evil is because they oppose the Jedi. The Jedi supposedly represent Good, and thus opposing them means that you are Evil.
Wars, slavery etc have been made from both the Jedi and the Sith for over many generations. The difference is that the Sith are extremely open to those ideas, having no qualms about the process itself; while the Jedi seem to be morally torn about these ideas, but in the end, they go forward with them anyway.

 

In-universe - it's possible that the average person who knows of the Sith, thinks of the Jedi as good, and the average Sith as Evil because of their opposition to the Good activities of the Jedi.

Out of universe - I would say that most people see the Sith as evil because of what they do onscreen.