WhatsMyName said:
Who u talking to? Me or him?
And yes, all good points.
And, i don't think we can actually criticize the writing of Sidious do to the fact that he is set up to be a mysterious figure in star wars. We don't know where he came from, what he plans, how he does what he does and how he became a Sith in the first place.
I was debunking his points, so to him obviously ;)
They could've easily made a plot where Sidious plans out the political intrigue in ways that aren't directly shown but are fairly understandable, and then Anakin does something to impress him and he seduces him or whatever... the way they did it, with him POSSIBLY planning EVERYTHING ahead incl. Anakin's birth, him falling in love with Padme on the Naboo trip, the pregnancy threat, and so on, I don't see how that can't be criticized.
When writing a story, choosing certain kinds of narrative forms, or tropes, will always result in heightened difficulty and risk of cheapening the quality.
Including a mysteriously working "higher power" that "guides" the heroes and may step in at critical or trivial moments? Risk - you can use that to excuse any plot hole or questionabl action. Any situation of tension can be questioned by bringing up the lack of the power's intervention.
Over-powered main character, or villain? Self-explanatory. Success = whatever, he's stronger than everyone. Failure or tension = um that feels contrived.
Omniscient chessmaster "behind it all"? It happened because see where it led the story. He knew it all along. Failure? Well, can't calculate EVERYTHING ahead, canya? Stuff happens.
Unreliable narrator? Again, just add a lot of confusion and you can excuse anything that doesn't fit in as lies, or hallucinations. Easy. But the stuff that fits in, that's justified, because see, it was part of the narrator's story!
Lucas took that risk with the PT by making the Emperor's scheme this chessmaster gambit - and fell flat on his face.