CT Original Emperor In-Universe Explanation

Hi everyone,
Apologies if this isn't the right place to ask this question, I'm new here and I can't find the topic elsewhere. Something I've always been really curious about is: what were the attempts at in-universe explanations for the Emperor's original appearance in ESB from the time of ROTJ's release up until 2004 when the canon was "fixed" by finally replacing Marjorie Eaton with Ian McDiarmid? It's fascinating to me to think that for 2 decades, Eaton's portrayal remained the canon portrayal of the Emperor in his first appearance. Surely fans and writers from those decades tried to rationalize this discrepancy you all had to live with until 2004. How did you all explain it? Again, hopefully this is okay to post here, as I'm asking for whatever head canon explanations that fans came up with during those 2 decades, as well as if there were ever any explanations written into EU to explain the difference in appearance, in order to rationalize what may have been the biggest plot hole within the original movies.
Thanks so much!
Matt

 

I just figured it was a bad holo-image since they were near an asteroid field, the transmission may not have been the best.

 

Thank you! Bad holo-image is definitely one of my top explanations as well. Very simple and succinct fix.

 

I don’t think it ever really needed explaining. Both actors and portrayals were simply accepted as being the same character. It’s like how Dumbledore changes from Richard Harris to Michael Gambon in the Harry Potter films. Nobody really minds, because both are still the character of Dumbledore.

 

Hm, interesting! I'm just now realizing that kind of analogy never crossed my mind when it came to this particular character recasting for some reason. I think maybe this one always made me so curious because there is such a difference between the two, with the original having the monkey eyes and whatnot, whereas in other franchise recastings (Dumbledore, Rhodey and Bruce Banner in the MCU, etc) the different portrayals of the characters were still just plain people, albeit people who looked very different, so it was somehow easier to write off in my mind. Thank you for the great perspective!

 

Both Justus Cade and Bob Effette have plausible explanations. Personally, I thought it was analogous to Harris to Gambon as Dumbledore when I was growing up. I merely accepted it without thinking about it. Besides, the Emperor's appearance in TESB is brief, whereas he has several scenes in ROTJ. Also, you don't see his face when he arrives at the Death Star II, and his face is still in shadow for the following scene. It's only during his scenes with Luke that the audience can clearly see his hideous, deformed face.

 

At the time, I really did accept the discontinuity as part of Hollywood casting, but I saw the films at once in the early 90s as a child. However, it is plausibly explainable by the asteroid field (as others have mentioned), and I can live with that.

It is interesting to note: Clive Revill, who voiced the Emperor in ESB, was for many years the only actor to be in both Star Wars and Star Trek. Revill played "Sir Guy of Gisborne" in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. It would not be until the prequels that another Trek/Wars actor crossover would occur.

 

Besides playing the Basil Rathbone role in Star Trek's Errol Flynn homage, Revill also voiced Rebel general Dodonna in LucasArts' 90s X-Wing video game.

 

That doesn't make much sense. It's a clear image of a person who is obviously not the Emperor from ROTJ, speaking in a clear voice that obviously does not belong to the Emperor from ROTJ. Nothing about it looks or sounds distorted. That's not how scrambled transmissions work. It's just a person who looks and sounds different.

It was just a different actor playing the same character in a fictional movie. There's no in-universe explanation. That's why the Eaton/Revill/monkey Emperor was replaced by Ian McDiarmid. It eliminated any confusion and made the story more consistent.

 

As a kid growing up with the trilogy I honestly never gave it much thought, it was just how it was. I grew up with those movies, and with repeated viewings on Betamax, and eventually VHS, became ingrained in my brain to the point that the newer Ian footage is jarring, which is hard for me to say because I really like Ian. I like the dialog in the original better too, but that could probably be because the original films are like a form of ear worm for me.

They looked 'close enough' to me to not really question it. I didn't start questioning nuances in the films until I started dialing BBSes and posting on Usenet newsgroups.

 

That’s how I’ve always seen it too.