Looking for a quote

Hey, at this point I'd just be happy if you'd admit your clone hunch is an assumption, where as the P=S is a deduction.

 

And I'm sure everyone would be happy if you could stay on the topic of non-existent quotes from Lucas and McCallum.

 

I provided a link to the qoute he wanted. You are the one who started this by saying those quotes lead one to assume P=S, where as it actually cause one to make the deduction that P=S.

Lucas said Palpatine is the Emperor.

Lucas said Sidious is the Emperor.

So, one can deduce that Palpatine is Sidious.

Lucas said that Palpatine takes a step in TPM (chancellor), then another in ATOC (enabeling act) and finally another in Episode III (becomes Empeor).

The OS says that Palpatine tries to seduce Anakin to the Dark Side of the Force.

You claim there is no evidence, then you say there is evidence but it can be interpreted in more than one way, but you can't explain how it can be interpreted in more than one way.

You are the one who derailed this topic, but you can't even admit that.

 

I'm still waiting for a Lucas quote to verify your deduction. Until that time it has no concrete evidence.

Please go back and read my explanation of the difference between a clue and evidence. For the purposes of this discussion I assert that a clue is open ended and can have more than one explanation while evidence is concrete and not open to interpretation. It is akin to the difference between hearing a crime and seeing a crime. So I say that there are plenty of clues that lead to your deduction, but no concrete evidence. If you can not discern the difference between the two types of information and why such a distinction is important and what happens when you mistake one for the other, then I'm afraid this conversation can go no further because you do not understand what is being debated or why it even matters.

 

Sometimes I wonder if George Lucas was dragged in to the same room as some people and directly said Palpatine=Sidious if they'd actually believe him.

Usually such thought progression ends with me thinking that they'll find some way to always believe they're not the same person no matter what they're presented with.

 

vacantlook,

Your screenname becomes more understandable with each post. I've already stated that if Lucas were to issue a clear statement on the matter then I would have to agree with it, even if it ran counter to my deduction. I'm beginning to believe that if we dragged him in here and he said something that you didn't anticipate, you'd still cling to your belief.

Why can't you accept that the connection to the characters is still open-ended given that there is no evidence proving any case? It doesn't mean that you should abandon your deduction, but that you are capable of accepting that Ep3 might not go quite as you planned.

 

Your screenname becomes more understandable with each post.

The mere fact that you just said that proves to me that you're completely clueless about my choice of screenname.

...but that you are capable of accepting that Ep3 might not go quite as you planned.

For the extreme most part, I have no plans for how EpIII should go. If a big revelation that Palpatine is a clone of Sidious is in EpIII, then yay for you; you'll be able to go around telling us all how stupid we were and how brilliant that you figured it out. But as it stands based on the way everything's been presented in the movies thus far, the most logical conclusion is that Palpatine and Sidious are the same person.

 

vacantlook,

I agree with you 100%. Palpatine being Sidious is the most logical conclusion based on the quotes and the films. I've always said that is what the audience is supposed to believe. It is the conclusion Lucas wants you to jump to. Now why he wants you to conclude that is not so certain nor is it the subject of this thread.

My point of contention is that hardly anyone is willing to admit that the clues that lead one to that deduction are extremely open-ended and not one of them is concrete and irrefutable. For some reason, I find it odd that everyone is so certain of this character relationship without any hard proof.

That is why I have latched on to ben_07's search for a quote. Shouldn't there be a real piece of evidence one way or the other? And if there isn't, why isn't there?

Oh, I was just teasing about the name. But you're right, I have no idea why you chose it.

 

I was just teasing about the name.

It didn't come across as teasing. It seemed the same bland way everyone else oblivious of the source behind my screenname latches onto it whenever they want to employ a quick insult.

 

I'm awfully sorry. I didn't realize that the phrase vacant look had a specific origin. I just thought it was commonly used to express a dull or lifeless affect of the face. I stand, or rather, sit corrected if it has some other more honorable beginnings. I'm all ears if you are inclined to correct me. However, lest anyone have to call the pot or kettle black, the statement you made about me not believing the direct word of Lucas worked pretty much the same bland way everyone bothered by my refusal to step in line with the majority on this issue goes whenever they want to employ a quick insult.

But let's put our offenses behind us. What do you make of the rest of it, after said offense?

 

The main difference between my bringing-GL-into-the-room comment and your comment about my screenname was that I didn't direct my GL comment at you.

Since you're perhaps curious about my screenname now after it all, "vacantlook" comes from my favorite television series of all time: Babylon 5. In the fifth season episode "The Very Long Night Of Londo Mollari," Ambassador Mollari is arguing with security chief Zach Allan trying to get a case of bravari, an alcoholic beverage, through customs faster than regulations allow. In the process of arguing, Mollari looks at Allan and says, "You have that vacant look in your eyes that says, 'Hold my head to your ear: you will hear the sea!'" Part of my picking "vacantlook" as my screenname was out of my love of Babylon 5. The other part was that I felt it was sufficiently ironic in that I tend to have a lot more going on in my mind that people at first realize.

Getting back on topic, there isn't 100% concrete proof that P=S that I have ready knowledge of. I think GL just thought everyone would get from watching the films. GL has said a multitude of times that he's a visual story teller and P=S seems to me to be visually said during the Qui-Gon funeral scene. One of the major themes of TPM is that of dual identities. There's the Handmaiden Padmé/Queen Amidala dual identity and there's the Senator Palpatine/Darth Sidious dual identity. If P ends up not being S, then it would be a serious deterioration of that theme in TPM. Is it possible that P is a clone? Yeah, I think anything is possible with GL telling the story. I think it's vastly unlikely though.

 

Emos wrote:

I'm still waiting for a Lucas quote to verify your deduction. Until that time it has no concrete evidence.

I'm still waiting for any of the clues or evidence that verify your assumption.

The fact that you don't see the things that show us that P=S as evidence doesn't mean it's not evidence.

I'd say the fact that on the Official Star Wars site, in their databank when you look up the character "Palpatine" you see a picture of Darth Sidious and Senator Palpatine on the ame page, and the databank calls Palpatine a "Sith" and says he truned Anakin Skywalker to the Dark Side of the Force, well I'd say this is evidence, damning evidence.

You'd say it's a clue, that the website will be changed, that it really doesn't mean what it looks like it means.

Meanwhile, Pablo said a few weeks ago that no "special measures" are being used to keep anything hidden from the public. I'd say having the OS knowingly post false info in their databank is a special measure, but you wouldn't.

Pablo also said back in the fall that their would be no twists in Episode III, and in Star Wars Insider #75 he said that something happens to palpatine that makes him look the way he does in Episode III.

Again, to a reasonable person this is evidence, but to you it's just more clues that can be interpreted another way.

What other way? Please explain how these revelations support your assumption in any way, shape or form.