Your political opinion aside, which Politican was the most like Palpatine’s facade as a Chancellor during the CW? I always thought he portrayed himself as a Churchill like Figure
FDR, maybe? Gave inspiring speeches about how they’d make it out of a crisis, while also staying in office for a long time while a war was going on (granted they didn’t have term limits yet, but it was controversial at the time).
All his life has he looked away… to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing. Hmph!
Yeah as far as role I think Lincoln and FDR are the most obvious parallels. Very popular presidents that also took in a lot of executive powers during a big war. With Lincoln it’s even more direct due to the war being a civil war about the secession of a Confederacy and the army being called the Grand Army of the Republic. If you count Julius Caesar and Napoleon, they are part of it too.
You’re probably talking more about personality though. For personality I think it would have to be a Roman politician, though I’m not familiar enough with them to pick one. He has the aristocratic bearing, the ambition, and the fatherly sense of concern for the Republic as an institution.
YouTube user HelloGreedo made what is IMO the best critique of how Palpatine is portrayed. When he first appears in the OT he was inspired by the Roman and Chinese Emperors of old, but the prequels made him so goddamn evil, more akin to a mythological creature from the Underworld.
From what I’ve read about The Rise of Skywalker (I refuse to watch that movie), Abrams cranked up the whole evil entity to a ludicrous level.
From what I’ve read about The Rise of Skywalker (I refuse to watch that movie), Abrams cranked up the whole evil entity to a ludicrous level.
One would think that Palps couldn’t get any more ludicrously evil than in ROTS, but if anyone could find a way to do it, it’d be Jar Jar Abrams.
“The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution… There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man. How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.”
― Leo Tolstoy
YouTube user HelloGreedo made what is IMO the best critique of how Palpatine is portrayed. When he first appears in the OT he was inspired by the Roman and Chinese Emperors of old, but the prequels made him so goddamn evil, more akin to a mythological creature from the Underworld.
From what I’ve read about The Rise of Skywalker (I refuse to watch that movie), Abrams cranked up the whole evil entity to a ludicrous level.
I would argue he’s already there in the OT. He definitely had that impression on me as a kid. He’s so evil that he’s willing to let Luke kill him if it will make Luke become evil. I actually don’t like that about Dark Empire, it tries to retcon this into being because he has a clone body backup.
YouTube user HelloGreedo made what is IMO the best critique of how Palpatine is portrayed. When he first appears in the OT he was inspired by the Roman and Chinese Emperors of old, but the prequels made him so goddamn evil, more akin to a mythological creature from the Underworld.
He’s talking specifically about Clive Revill’s performance in Episode 5. The prequels didn’t make Palpatine like that, Ian McDiarmid did.
Reading R + L ≠ J theories