Anyone prefer the original (Clive Revill) Emperor?

Or maybe he just liked the idea, knowing what he did about the bloodline?

 

Maybe, but I notice that the poster above me actually typed much of what I was thinking.

The original Emperor is not patronising enough in his tone.

 

I think thats a different interpretation compared to the original storyline. Originally, the Emperor wants Vader to kill him, Vader says maybe Skywalker would be more useful on their side, the Emperor says thats actually a good idea, and then Vader goes off to convert him.

 

I love the Emperor in ROTJ... I think his dialogue is awesome and enjoy annoying the family by reciting it whenever we sit down to watch ROTJ. When it was on HBO/Cinemax the last few months... it meant a lot of viewings.

I wish the make-up guys could have done a better job blending the ESB SE Emperor with what we see in ROTJ or that GL had shot the hologram insertion in a way that limited how much of the face that you saw. What we see in ESB SE is the same fat/thick necked Emperor we got in ROTS... even though, timeline-wise, it's not that far off from ROTJ and it's hard to justify why he looks so different in such a short timeframe.

But again... I love the Emperor in ROTJ. Awesome character.

 

I can't say that I do. There is so much about Ian's performance as the Emperor/Palpatine that is brilliant, I can't imagine another actor having the role.

 

Following up on this: I have a very interesting discovery. An early draft of ESB--the fourth draft--physically compares the Emperor to Ben Kenobi!

It comes during the Emperor's only scene, naturally. From the fourth draft:

294. INT. VADER'S STAR DESTROYER - VADER'S CHAMBER.

The Dark Lord, Darth Vader, is alone in his chamber. A strange sound is heard and light begins to play across Vader's black figure. He looks up and bows quickly. A twelve foot hologram of the Galactic Emperor materializes before Vader. The Emperor's face cannot be seen, for it is shrouded in dark robes with a monk's hood, reminiscent of the cloak worn by old Ben Kenobi. His voice is even deeper and more frightening than Vader's.


Now, was this comparison used simply because it was just the easiest way of conveying what the Emperor looked like? Or was there something more here? If its something more, then what does it mean? Would it suggest that the Emperor has a Jedi robe like Kenobi and was therefore a former Jedi or something? You can come up with a thousand answers here. Maybe this is why Hamill made the previous comparison, because the script had already conditioned him to compare the Emperor to Kenobi so when the VO was done and it sounded kind of similar to Guiness it triggered this recollection.

Or, to take a more skeptical--and perhaps rational--approach to the whole matter: keep in mind this draft was written solely by Kasdan. It is doubtful that he was privy to some ambiguous secret about the Emperor's nature. While it is possible that Lucas said "Write that the Emperor is similar to Ben Kenobi", this is illogical because why would he use stylistic foreshadowing when the script has no audience to keep in suspense, it is only written for himself basically. What is more likely is that Kasdan simply said "so, whats the Emperor look like?" and Lucas replied, "uh, well he's all dark and shadowy, and he has a cloak, sort of like a monks cloak or the one Ben Kenobi wore." And then Kasdan basically wrote that. So we should't read too much into it, I think. But its still interesting with some imagination!

EDIT

That appears to actually be the shooting script.

 

NO
Ian is the better emperor of the two, although clive's version wasn't so bad

 

The version w/Ian is too wordy. I have no problem w/Clive Revill as the Emperor. I'm biased though because the OOT is what I grew up on. I love Ian but I really don't think it's that important that they have to have him as the Emperor in ESB.

 

I think the incosisitey was because he changed his apperance te,parelly like in rots

 

Clive Revill's delivery was terrible, quite frankly.

 

Revill was ****. Ian ftw. The Emperor does not have a monkey face.

 

Ian McDiarmid essentially IS the Emperor, and has been since 1983... he made the role his own, a truly masterful study in evil, insidious Machiavellian villainy, and it was only a matter of time before GL replaced the ESB version with McDiarmid.
In fact, I half expected him to do it back in '97 for the special editions, but we had to wait a few more years for it.

Having said that, I've always thought Revill's voice is awesome too, and his delivery was just great, darkly subdued and very malevolent. In those three years between ESB and ROTJ, to me he simply WAS the Emperor.
Anyhow, both are great, and we all have the original versions as well as the new ones, so we can watch his interpretation any time we want to... chimpanzee's eyes and old woman's mouth included.

 

I'm not sure which version I prefer... Revill's is mysterious and really succeeds in making the audience desparate to find out more about this strange guy, but I think McDiarmid's is more menacing..

I wonder what RotJ would have been like if Revill was cast with Palpatine's part. Interesting.

 

I love Mcdiarmid. He is Palpatine, the best character in Return of the Jedi in my opinion.

Clive Revill actually had an excellent career doing voice on numerous cartoons, notably for me was Transformers the Movie from 1986.

 

I just watched the original again tonight. Of course, I grew up with it, but I have to say that Ian's scene is way better, even if a couple of his lines seem off just a tad.

 

Yes, that one single line he had was gold!

 

The Emperor was always meant to be a symbol of Satan, as Lucas has said by his tempting offers. As said in the ROTS commentary, he's also like the Grim Reaper, black cloak and hood and pale white. while bringing death down on all.

 

Well, if we want an in-story explanation, the Dark Side did it. He just kept feeding like a vampire off of slaves and there you go.

 

I think the pacing of the delivery was better with Revil, but Ian did a better job over-all. Not sure what happened there with Ian's delivery but he changed it quite a bit during ROTS (in which this ESB scene was filmed). It's slower and more drawn out. I prefer the quicker/snappier delivery ala ROTJ and TPM.

 

Actually, according to the official timeline there's only a year between TESB and ROTJ.

 

It was one originally by the early EU, but its been revised to three now, for some reason. There was a great thread here a couple months ago that examined the changing timeline between ESB-ROTJ.

 

changed to three years? Where did that come from??

 

The new EU seems to delight in changing things such as the time elapsed between movies, characters' ages, etc. to fit in with its sprawling, overwrought and poorly structured continuity.

I much prefered the old days when everything was relatively simple...

 

It's a little late for an April Fools joke...

the OS timeline has TESB at 3 ABY, ROTJ at 4 ABY, same as it ever was.

 

so does wookieepedia, which though unofficial is edited by people very much obsessed with numbers and timelines and stuff
hence my asking where the 3 years come from. of course it's gonna be EU, but what exactly? First I've heard of that.