@StealthMoose: I was trying to be generous and not push a reality you were clearly unwilling to accept onto you but to clarify, siding with a canonical source over a random fan's interpretation of a scene isn't an opinion or bias. It's simply common sense.
__________________ "I like big sweaty testicles." - DMB, Gchat, 2017.
In the eyes of what is or isn't part of the Disney canon, true.
It's still an accurate tool for measuring the objectivity of evidence. It's really sad that I have to even use it when people are just going "DERR IS CANON CUZ IT SAYS X" and I'm actually going over the direct source in question instead of a blurb. It would be like taking a book quiz based simply on the author's cousin's take on three chapters. No, that actually might be more accurate.
Naysayers: "This source, which I've indicated is canon (canon apparently being unable to be analyzed), is more valid than your actual examination of the event in question using canon which exists before my canon and upon which my canon is supposedly based etc."
Me: "FFS, you have eyes and ears. Analyze the fight. You can't hide behind absolute statements when actual evidence contradicts it. This is Logic 101."
1. No, that's not how to summarize my statement. But you were always the lord of strawmans and that's not likely to change anytime soon.
2. See above. The caste system of old Legends canon still makes axiomatic sense, because the works of George Lucas are always superior to works which draw conclusions on it from secondary authors and creators. It takes ten minutes tops to write a blurb or holocron article; it took days or weeks to film, revise, and choreograph the Sids/Yoda fight. You cannot with any reasonable sanity expect me to believe that GL was mistaken in showing Sidious as visibly inferior and "MUH CANON" is the absolute arbiter of the truth.
3. The Trump angle of "everyone knows it" is adorable, but you should try sourcing your arguments a bit. Perhaps you've gotten lazy in your old age. Here, I'll make this simple for you - The events of the movie, as noted by me and easily cross-examined by everyone who owns internet access or a copy of the DVD, supports the idea that Sidious was NOT superior in the Yoda/Sids fight, and actually was disarmed, failed to achieve mastery in the Force battles, and won because he had a handrail.
I'm sorry this really hurts your ten plus year streak of "Sidious is Gawd", but the truth sometimes hurts.
4. The entire side-argument of him being unlikely to have 'mastered' all seven forms of Lightsaber combat was a direct example indicating the disconnect between G canon and C canon; the fact that you overlooked or ignored the context means you should read slower, or with someone to help you. GL doesn't show Sidious dominating actual bonafide master swordsmen. He only shows him dominating (at the time) no-feat wonders in what might be the worst choreographed fight scene since Equilibrium's intro. Sidious acts erratically and the Jedi Masters take him seriously, but he is very easily disarmed by both. Hell, Mace -frontkicks- his weapon from his hand; that's amateur hour at its finest.
The support for Sidious NOT being a master of all seven forms of lightsaber combat is likely given the evidence. He had less opportunities to practice, fewer people to learn from and practice with, and he is dominated by actual Jedi masters.
The support for Sidious knowing all seven forms of combat and mastering them is.... a line of C-canon.
Common sense is neither common nor exactly sensible. It's often a cover-word for "I can't provide my argument, so I'm going to assume you're wrong and than claim it's self-evident".
If you can't provide the argument, but you intend to believe in "MUH CANON" as holy and unapproachable, then we're done. You can't be reasoned with, and at this point you're being obtuse.
Indeed: I suppose my summary lent your argument more credibility than it actually deserved. But I'm generous like that with old friends.
No, it doesn't. The caste system no longer applies because what is canon and what is Legends are two mutually exclusive categories. Ergo, no reason to "rank" how canon a non-canon thing is. I'm trying to determine a simpler combination of words to convey the point, but I'm not sure this is possible.
Contrary to your insinuations, you're not the only person who's watched or reviewed Episode III. It stands to reason that the writers involved with Legends and canon continuity are familiar with Revenge of the Sith.
It's kind of a big deal.
Probably even listed in the job requirements.
If your threshold for humiliation can withstand source after source after source explicitly contradicting your own interpretation, then sure. I'll post sources and screenshots for as many as I can find when I get home.
There is no G and C canon.
More irony from the man whose entire argument is predicated on a false premise, because:
Yes, we're familiar with your scintillating commentary on the fight scene. No one disputes that the choreography is terrible. What people dispute are the ridiculous conclusions you and you alone draw from one badly choreographed scene while simultaneously discarding shittons of evidence to the contrary in order to satisfy your 12 year grudge against a fictional character who's more powerful, important, and successful than Marka Ragnos.
If by "evidence" you really mean "the abundant nerd!rage of a defeated Antediluvian" and only if we exclude the actual evidence... such as the valid source that specifically calls him one, then yeah, sure.
This is how Star Wars prodigies often work, my friend.
I know this is the heart of the matter for you: having witnessed the absolute annihilation of the Antediluvian platform ages ago. But again, I beseech you:
Does the familiarity of those writers and such matter, though? I ask this seriously.
Hear me out on this.
"The Death of the Author" is an essay on literary criticism written by Roland Barthes in the late sixties. He posits that the audience/reader/viewer must separate a work from it's creator in order to break free from the "interpretative tyranny" of the author/writer. This is to say that this is generally something one reasonably does when there are several conflicting interpretations from the authority of a said work.
I mean, we look to these authorities for confirmation to inform these hypothetical battles and "versus" situations but how unbreakable is that really? Most of these discussions involve individuals going back and forth like they're discussing genuinely objective facts about these enormously subjective bodies of work. Film-making is one part industry and another part art, fundamentally. The latter is obviously the facet of film-making that is most relevant in all of these discussions.
In all honesty, why wouldn't what takes place on the screen take precedence? I question whether or not author/writer intent is important enough or even matters enough to have any sort of weighty merit among these disagreements. Especially with a fictional universe like Star Wars? With so many changes, contradictions, swathes of periods being considered "unofficial" (Legends), etc?
What we see matters and there is likely more than one interpretation that is "correct." It doesn't necessarily translate to, "What will go, goes." However, it would seem that the author/writer is not capable of holding infallible dominion over the intention of what they create.
Hypothetical incoming:
If GL himself woke up tomorrow and said Yoda was the weakest character in the SW universe? Or if a collection of writers/current authorities said that, I don't know, Jocasta Nu was the strongest? I mean, what would you really have to say? Is it enough to suggest that it is the most reasonable decision to concede because they created these works, whether it's an old intention to change these characters or a relatively embryonic one?
If Nu was the strongest, how could it be possible with how she's dispatched? If Yoda is the weakest, how was he not defeated every time? "It doesn't matter, the creators and authorities said so" isn't good enough and to be honest? In these disagreements? I don't think it has been for a long time.
What we see and reasonable interpretations seem to have the highest degree of jurisdiction. Things like improvisation, author contradiction, a writer changing his mind? These things throw a wrench into the works regarding author/writer interpretation as being a preeminent authority about the work itself. "They created it" is lacking when considering the circumstances and the very nature of any specific artistic work or even the world-building involved.
The thing about author interpretation is that it suffers from the same limitations as reader/audience interpretation; It can be paradoxical, change over time, and might not be the best explanation. As Barthes surmised, a writer's interpretation of his own works are no more valid than the interpretations of any of the readers/audience and that a solitary vision and/or "right" interpretation is to "impose a limit on that text."
Translating that to discussing these versus battles, it's veracity becomes clear. Arguments are useless because claims by writers have been made about Sidious' apparent mastery over everything, from lightsabers to perhaps even to the force (at least the latter was the case in Legends but not any longer. See what I mean?) Considering the work is intrinsically subjective, the claims (even from writers and authors) are bound by that precondition.
The highest authority is always the work itself. If there can be reasonable arguments made and points demonstrated with enough clarity utilizing that aforementioned work, I don't see how a writer coming along and saying, "Nope" is substantial enough. It leaves much to be desired.
I am going to catch a star system of shit for what I'm about to say but both of your positions come from a place that seems to be slightly askew of how to interpret the work. For one, you have Tempest claiming writer/author authority is the greatest factor when determining who's who, which I find faulty for all the reasons I mentioned above. On the other hand, you have Janus discussing the "objectivity" of the evidence, which seems to do no justice to the work itself.
I would only lean towards Janus' position because it favors the work itself which, through what I just explained, seems to be the more reasonable position when interpreting the abilities and interactions of fictional characters.
That's just my two cents anyway.
__________________
Nothing ever ends.
Last edited by Gehenna on Nov 8th, 2017 at 08:11 AM
Sep 29th, 2017 06:38 PM
