CT Does anyone actually prefer the Clive Revill/Elaine Baker Palpatine?

I'll just answer the question (without reading the other answers beforehand).

I wouldn't have any issue with the Baker Palpatine if that was the only one there was. Yes, the eyes looked really odd, the face as a whole more like that of a woman and good god what an ugly make up job, but at least I don't remember ever wondering about why it looked so different when compared to Jedi. Don't know if that even occured to me. There's a whole lot of movies that are part of a series or franchise where things look different from movie to the next or another and I wouldn't even consider that an inconsistency. It's just a question of production design, money, planning and what not.

Anyways... I do prefer the "new" Palpatine. The only problem with that one is that it kind of looks "too good". I don't mean to say that it has to look bad because the original looked bad, but there's something about the general quality of the picture that just makes it look like it's newer than the actual film. Maybe it's the detail on the hood or the eyes or really just my mind knowing that it's newer. Oh well.

That the replacement resembles "Sith" McDiarmid more than "Jedi" McDiarmid is something I have no problem with. To today's viewer the hologram in Empire isn't the first time they see Palpatine, so in a way it makes more sense to have him look more like what he did the last time we saw him.

Still, Adywan's is the best of both worlds.

 

I have to admit, the Revill/Baker Palpatine looks quite scary and feels really menacing.
But, because of consistency reasons, I prefer the McDiarmid Palpatine.

 

This one it will be better:



Just kidding.

I preffer the original one. I grow up watching the Clive Palpatine and that was never be a problem.
Ian McDiarmid Palpatine's from ROTS doesn't looks the same of ROTJ either:

 

That's because the Ian footage was done with a digital camera, rather than shot on film as Baker had been.

 

It has nothing to do with what they used, they just have decades of difference. Wether it was shot on film or digital, the latter would always have a more clean and detailed look.

 

There is 23 or so years between ROTS and ROTJ. I can suspend my disbelief there.

 

I was always happy with the original version, but I'm happy enough with the new version too. It's a change that makes sense.

 

The original version always looked weird to me, I prefer the new one.

 

I prefer the old one. The dialogue is better and less on-the-nost, and the makeup they used for Palpatine in the SE just looks weird. I know it's there to maintain continuity, but is there really a need for that? We have multiple cases of different actors playing the same character throughout the series (Wedge was played by two different actors in the same film), or different physical portrayals (Digital Yoda looks very different from puppet Yoda). I can understand why the change was made, I just don't think it was ultimately that necessary, nor do I think the newer version is better.

 

Ian was 23 years older and his face is more rounded from age, no makeup can cover that up. Ian himself said that when he watches ROTJ he can see his much younger face under all the makeup.

Back on topic, I prefer the SE version with Ian.

 

Revill, by a country mile.

In one brief minute, his Mephistophelean evil--mirroring Yoda's subdued sagacity-- simultaneously succeeds in establishing what force could have corrupted Vader in the first place and planting the seeds of fear for Luke's soul. As intimidating as Vader is in that film, I wouldn't want to be on the same planet as his boss. That...horrid thing...

McDiarmid's ROTJ Emperor, by contrast, amounted to nothing more than the Wicked Witch of the Death Star. Until his admittedly effective final scene, he's all mincing and cackling and empty posturing.

(Let it be said, though, that I love McDiarmid's work in the Prequels, particularly the first half of ROTS.)

 

I love McDiarmid's portrayal of Palpatine the politician. I agree, though, that Darth Sidious can come off like a bit of a pantomime villain at times.

 

While I've always accepted Baker/Revill Sheev, I've also always preferred McDiarmid, with the exception of the hood in this scene, which is so loose-fitting that it looks like a hat in the 2004 version.

Nonetheless, it's awesome that Adywan gave Baker McDiarmid's voice in this video:

 

I completely prefer the McDiarmid version. As a kid, it bugged me no end not to have McDiarmid in there as the Emperor. I'm like "Who is this guy? That's not the REAL Emperor!"

I will say, I don't get why they kept Ian so restrained. Monotone delivery and lack of expression were somewhat disappointing. But,it's still an improvement over the original.

 

I prefer it because it looks more intimidating and sounds more intimidating. Ian sounded like he was about to fall asleep when he recorded the updated version for the film.

 

I think Ian McDiarmid did a good job recording TESB Palps/Sids. It's subtle. As far as the Clive Revill/Elaine Baker version goes, it's okay. It's not bad. The voice is well done. However, I prefer McDiarmid.

 

Interesting question and replies.

I do really like both versions. The Emperor shown in Empire is creepier, and more obviously alien. But McDiarmid's performance as the Emperor in Jedi is great, and the character is more fleshed out. I choose McDiarmid.

 

Clive owned that scene. When Ian did it in the special, it didn't have the same effect for me cause you could tell it was forced and the dialogue was changed to fit the PT better.

 

I prefer McDiarmid's version - it matches up with the other films and frankly, looks better.

 

This is one of those changes that on paper sounds fantastic. Why not improve the continuity at least with ROTJ? But the execution is poor. The angle of the shot looks off with the odd head tilt that Ian is doing, the make-up isn't right, the performance seems bored and lazy and the new dialogue is completely unnecessary. I feel the same about Boba Fetts new voice. Had these been done better, perhaps they would be improvements, but instead they're scenes that are added right back into the list to improve in the next editions.

 

I will say that it would’ve been better if they made him look the way he did in RETURN OF THE JEDI, rather than using the REVENGE OF THE SITH model.

 

I just got to this part in ESB while showing the OOT to my class, both for educational purposes as well as to prepare them for TFA (Over half my class has not seen the OT). Revill is /far/ spookier than McDiarmid in this scene.

 

FYI, it was discovered recently that the original Emperor was not played by Elaine Baker, but by an older actress whose name I'll try to find and post here in a moment.

EDIT: Marjorie Eaton. Proof and thread here: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/marjorie-eaton-the-original-emperor.50033425/

 

When this topic comes up, I always ask: the Mountain has been recast twice now in Game of Thrones - would, given the possibility, reinserting the same actor in all of those scenes make it better because of the "continuity"?

Conan Stevens played the "angry mad dog" part in Season 1's tournament - Ian Whyte the barely seen, terrifying "torture mage" in Season 2's Harrenhall; would you take any of them and put them into the other segments, even though everything was adapted to suit their partifcular changed personas, and those themselves were perfect for the settings and context they were in?
Even wth Hafthor Björnsson, would Conan Stenvens really work if you inserted him into the Seaseon 4 scenes? Björnsson went for a "lumbering bear, slow to anger... but once you got him angry, be very afraid" vibe, his barely interested charges at Oberyn wouldn't work with Steven's permanently furious face expression.


Same here... the Emperor was RECAST. Given a NEW PERSONALITY - sadistic and gleeful, as opposed to stoic and ominous. A new musical theme was written for him.
V's Emperor works for that scene, and the organ cluster that plays during it, coupled with the mystery, suspense and intrigue surrounding it. Reinserting III's McDiarmid worked pretty well - but it wasn't it.
Should they ever lose their minds and shoot an alternate sequel to Empire, they should reuse that Emperor in it!