Saga The Saga of Palpatine?

Could it be said that the saga is as much about Palpatine as it is about the Skywalkers? Palpatine causes everything that happens in the saga. He appears in the opening scenes of TPM and the Saga ends shortly after his death.

 

It is at least arguable. He either causes, or is the target of, pretty much everything that happens in the 6 films.

 

He's the main villain and put much of what happened in each of the movies into motion so yes.

Now yes, most say Vader is, but let's not forget he had some guidance in that area.

 

The Villain with a Thousand Faces.

 

He's certainly instrumental to a massive extent in what happens in Eps I-VI - however, I'd have to say no, it's not 'about' Palpatine. We find out almost nothing about him, not his background, not his motivations, not what led him to become a Sith Lord, not even his first name.

(Although I do subscribe to the theory that his full name is Frank Palpatine. Must be)

Plus, he's not in all six films.

The Darth Plagueis novel covers his backstory, but that's EU. If you're talking about who or what the SW Saga is about, a novel by anyone other than GL himself isn't going to cut it. What little is presented in the Saga regarding Palps and Plagueis isn't necessarily intended to be true, either partly or fully, and Palpatine never even says Plagueis was his master. "It's a Sith legend", or, more to the point, it's a bit of manipulation on Palpatine's part, true or not.

 

If the ST is going to revolve around palpatine's legacy, it will be a step backwards. New movie, new characters, Palp's story's been told and it's time to move on to new bad guys doing more bad things.

 

Based on the movies alone even, I think it's pretty safe to say that Plagueis was Palpatine's master, and Palpatine killed him in his sleep. It's clearly the intent of that scene that Palpatine is coyly referring to himself, and smugly reminiscing in his triumph over his old master.

 

A thousand faces in the reveal scene in ROTS alone

 

I thought I was the only one 0_0

Well anyway, nah I wouldn't say so. Anakin/Vader is widely present in each ep, yet Palpatine has only one or two direct mentions in ANH and a brief 90 seconds cameo in TESB

 

Palpatine is his first name....

Palpatine Skywalker

 

Or he's trying to make Anakin think that - it's exactly the sort of mind game Palps would play. I prefer to think of it as ambiguous, rather than set in stone as true or false.

 

Why would Anakin care about what Palpatine's master's name was, or how Palpatine killed him? All he would care about is whether or not he taught Palpatine how to cheat death, which is the only part of that story that's meant to be ambiguous. And note that even then, Palpatine is probably telling the truth. Palpatine says that Plagueis "taught him everything he knew". Anakin, and really any listener in that context, would naturally assume that the second "he" referred to Plagueis. But, grammatically, it could just as easily refer to Palpatine--meaning Plagueis taught Palpatine everything Palpatine knew, which doesn't necessarily include the secret of immortality. Lucas seems to be quite fond of this kind of trick, as a similar one is again used in The Clone Wars, when Anakin and Ahsoka trick a bombing suspect into a confession by using ambiguous wording. From starwars.com:

When ensnaring Letta with her own words, Anakin points out that no one said to her that Jackar was dead...and he's right. What Ahsoka said was, "Someone made Jackar the bomb." Unless you were tipped off that the nano-droids were in Jackar's bloodstream, that phrase would ordinarily mean that someone created a bomb for Jackar.



So the scene already operates on three levels: Palpatine is presenting his story as an old legend, but he's actually revealing his own backstory, all while using linguistic trickery to tell the truth and lie at the same time. I don't think it was meant to operate on a fourth level. To say otherwise is to forcibly insert mystery into the equation just for the sake of it, which I find gets old.

edit: I mean, Palpatine even gets a delicious little look of almost involuntary satisfaction when he talks about killing his master in bed. The camera is focused very closely on just Palpatine's face, signaling that we're being treated to a rare show of Palpatine's true inner thoughts and feelings--and of course they're ones exclusively of violence and hate. It's a great scene with a great bit of acting from Ian McDiarmid, but to say that he was lying for basically no reason pretty well wrecks it.

 

I didn't say he was lying for no reason - or at all. Like you said, he was using linguistic trickery to tell the truth and the lie at the same time. The movie strongly implies that Plagueis was Palpatine's master - yet it clearly establishes that Palps doesn't have the power to cheat death, or is withholding it from Anakin. Lies within lies within half-truths within truth within other lies.
The point really was that Anakin was seduced by his own desire, and when it was time to collect, it turned out that he'd been sold a dud - for a much higher price than he'd ever intended to pay. Buyer beware, at least when it comes to dealing with the Sith. It's a textbook illustration of the pitfalls of entering into a Faustian bargain.

Just how much of Palpatine's story was true doesn't actually matter (like most good lies, it was probably about 90% true). It got the result he was after, and should he need to use it again, he could always tweak it to suit his latest acquisition. All I was really pointing out was that he never committed to anything, using (most likely) his own past to seduce Anakin to the Dark Side, and once that was done, well, it was only ever a Sith legend, but let's have a crack at making it come true after the we've patched up that cracked wall and fixed the executive bathroom...
First things first - go and kill some Jedi. NOW!

 

I'd say the fact that it's described as a 'Sith legend' is fairly indicative of it's ambiguity.

 

What would be the alternative? He wasn't ready to reveal that he was a Sith Lord.

 

The alternative to the fact that he was talking about his own master? Well, one alternative is that he needed a good yarn to close the deal with Anakin's turn and this was the perfect bait. The ability to save Padme from the fate which he feared she would meet. If he describes it as a Sith legend, he really can't be accused of lying can he?

 

"Ever hear The Tragedy of my Master?"

 

Yes, that's exactly my point. Phrasing it in any other way than a Sith legend wouldn't make a whole lot of sense in those circumstances.

 

But the way it's phrased doesn't prove that Plagueis is Sidious' master. The way it's phrased could indicate many things, among which are that Sidious didn't want to reveal his identity at that stage, OR that it's a story of uncertain origin, which doesn't paint Sidious as a liar further down the track. Hence, it's ambiguous. I'm not suggesting for a minute that Plagueis definitely isn't Sidious' master. All I'm saying is that from the films alone, it's not clear. Sidious' brilliance lies partly in his ability to mislead and deceive without straight out lying and this may well be a perfect example of it.

 

I believe Palps was telling the truth. It's probably one of the few times in his twisted existence that he ever did.

 

No, it doesn't exactly prove the story was about him and his master, but I think the onscreen evidence is indicative that it was. Even before you consider things like the Plagueis novel.

 

With all due respect, what evidence would that be?