XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.movies.past-films   
   From: anybody@anywhere-anytime.com   
      
   In article <6fkn63tjqclmpbi9kpgje5c5edjng7e9me@4ax.com>, Merrick   
   Baldelli  wrote:   
      
   > On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:28:23 +1200, Anybody   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   > >Not necessairly "calculated" or planned, but it did help in his   
   > >convincing of the Senate that the Jedi had gone bad.   
   >   
   >         Seems a little after the fact, given that Palpatine through   
   > Skywalker's help assassinated the whole of the Jedis before going to   
   > the Senate for their approval.  Hell, in the movie, there wasn't even   
   > a between scene with Palpatine going to the Council to prove this to   
   > be the case.  He just launched the attack and removed them all without   
   > a second though.   
      
   Palpatine has by that time is in complete control, he doesn't   
   technically need the Senate's approval, but it's still best to try and   
   keep them on his side ... he doesn't even disband them until Episode   
   IV, 20 years later.   
      
      
      
   > >We also don't really know that it was "scarring" caused by the lightning   
   > >since we don't see Darth Sidious' face before that point.   
   >   
   >         Good conjecture, but unfortunately Hollywood doesn't normally   
   > work that way.  They wanted to explain what we saw of him in Episodes   
   > V and VI, and used III as the focal point for why he looked that way   
   > in the future.   
   >         It's simple story telling with a paradoxical loop.   
      
   Not completely. Sidious could easily have had "disfigured" face due to   
   years of Dark Side use and as Palpatine he simply hides it behind a   
   mask (either physical or some sort of more powerful Mind Trick).   
      
      
      
   > >In the novel is says something about Palpatine's mask being removed, but   
   > >whether that means a literal mask hiding his face or a figurative mask   
   > >hiding his plans is arguable (most likely both since a lot of Star Wars   
   > >has multiple meanings).   
   >   
   >         As I recall Revenge of the Sith was written by Matthew   
   > Woodring Stover.  This means that Stover was given some literary   
   > license to write as he saw fit, with Lucas given the final bless on   
   > the work.  Sorry -- while I like reading the adaptations, I realize   
   > that ultimately that's what they are: adaptations of someone else's   
   > work.   
      
   The Star Wars movie novelisations are not truely "adaptations" as such,   
   unlike Hollyweird's own in-name-only "adaptations" of books. The movie   
   noveilsations come straight off the script and George Lucas' own extra   
   / background material (although the script may change after the novels   
   have been written due to the timeframe needed to get the books printed   
   and distributed). Obviously to flesh out the visual script to a   
   readbale book there are bits added by the author, but they are minor   
   and don't affect the main storyline ... whether or not the "mask" is   
   one of those simple author-ideas or something said by George Lucas is   
   unlikely to ever be known unless something else comes along to prove it   
   one way or the other.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)