Ok, now I am lost with you. My "interpretation" of "works on" is so far off track but your "No, it says "George Lucas CREATED a list," as in it was COMPLETED" interpretation of "works on" is the ultimate truth?
I wasn't trying to slide by you - I know that you quoted it. I read the post, remember? I was simply correcting myself - I briefly misremembered, but not that it matters.
Rest assured, my argument doesn't hinge on a difference between "created" and "works," since the same point is conveyed.
As of that interview, the film making is currently undergoing, as indicated by:
When Stunt Coordinator and Sword Master Nick Gillard sets down to script a lightsaber duel, he needs to have some guage as to how competent the combatants are.
At the same time, George Lucas "works" on a leveling system.
What we are reading is the same tier list presented by Nick Gillard in the Revenge of the Sith DVD and Making Episode III. Thus, we can conclude Lucas did not change the tier systems after its current state.
Therefore, the fact Lucas is currently working on it or not is irrelevant, given no significant changes were made.
Again, the argument you have for this is that Nick Gillard changed the tiers George Lucas had, but since we can see what Lucas had and it matches what Gillard had, he didn't.
The alternative that can be presented is that George Lucas edited the lists further but didn't tell Gillard, but that doesn't make sense since Lucas is making them for and with Gillard to use when working on the fights.
Yes, as I said to Nai, there are assumptions that have to be made; however, the assumptions are far more logical than the alternative you are presenting.
(Final Edit: 6:06 PM ET)
Last edited by DarthAnt66 on Oct 12th, 2017 at 10:00 PM
I can imagine Anakin as of Rots having a seriously hard time going all out on Palpatine. Palpatine would definitely gain a good mental and emotional foothold over him.
That said, IF it was Lucas’s intention at the time of that quote to mean that Anakin is not even capable of fighting on or above the level of Yoda/Palpatine, I’m pretty sure he retconned that with the Morris arc.
Registered: May 2005
Location: .::The Anti-Fanboy Confederation::.
Okay. Apparently, I must take you by the hand and go through this with you step by step, as you appear unable to follow my (as I thought not too complex) line of thoughts.
Why do we need a published "level system"
There is something you don't seem to get. I'm not questioning the general existence of the "level system" or the idea, that Lucas himself worked on it. I'm questioning the idea, that it is canon, because of the fact that it – and with that I mean a list of Jedi on different levels – has never been published.
While that may not be a problem for you, it is a problem for me. Why? Because information needs to be falsifiable in order to be considered for an argument. As it is, the "level system" is just some background material referenced by a single person: Nick Gillard. Who, in turn, is inconsistent with his remarks on the aforementioned level system. They can neither be falsified or verified, since we don't have access to the original level system, that was probably (co-)designed by George Lucas.
Then, we don't even know what the context is exactly. Does Gillard even factor in the Force or is he just concerned with the pure sword-fighting aka lightsaber skill, as that "level system" is used to base lightsaber fights on? And if he doesn't factor in the Force, would that change the ranking? So a published and contextualized "level system" would be needed as a basis for arguments.
And that would be important because:
Nick Gillard makes incoherent claims
I find it rather annoying, that you keep focusing the problem to the "Anakin vs Obi-Wan" point, while you keep glossing over anything else, namely:
a) Are there 8 or 10 levels?
While that may seem some minor point to you, I find it rather astonishing, that the guy who makes a reference to that "level system" apparently can't decide, whether Lucas designed 8 tiers or 10 tiers. If his accuracy fails on such a very basic level, then how can we trust his "memories" on more complex points?
b) The placement of Anakin
Contrary to your little painting, it is not just a question of scale. Through the various instances, in which Gillard makes a reference to the "level system", he puts Anakin once on 8 bordering 9 and then on 9 (with the "bordering 10" being added by yourself). That is the scaling part. The other part is that, when he puts him onto "9", he does put him on one level with Yoda, Mace and Sidious in that specific context. Not above them, but on par with. This contradiction undermines the very purpose of this thread. Because if Gillard makes contradicting statements, one would need to check the original level system to determine what is correct. Since we don’t have that, we can't do it.
The application of the "level system"
And this is where your entire "argument" falls apart. Because, apparently, the "level system" doesn’t matter at all.
Anakin's defeat at the hands of Obi-Wan is just one example. The fact that both Yoda and Mace Windu managed to defeat Sidious in rather short duels, also speaks for the fact, that the level system wasn't considered that much, even when filming the movie that it was designed for, given how all three characters are placed on the same "level", where a fight between two opponents on different levels (Anakin – Obi-Wan) takes much more time than that. That appears to be illogical.
Furthermore, as the "Homing Beacon #126" you've quoted says: "At so high a ranking, it comes down to individual fighting styles as well as the circumstances of the surroundings that make the difference." In short: In the end, there are many other factors that determine the outcome of a fight, aside from the actual ranking.
And this is especially problematic when Gillard can't decide how he wants to place Anakin at all. As a 9 with Yoda, Windu, Sidious? As an 8.5 – 9 slightly above Yoda, Windu, Sidious? And how does that place him above the trio (which was the basic thesis of your argument)?
Furthermore, I have absolutely no idea, if Gillard just thinks about their lightsaber skill or factors stuff like force mastery into the mix. Again: Given that Dooku and Obi-Wan have been placed on the same "tier", the latter doesn't seem to be the case, as Dooku is apparently easily capable of totally destroying Obi-Wan with the Force. And if Gillard didn't consider their force abilities, then how does that "level system" matter at all?
Why "out of universe" statements can't dictate canon
I find it rather hard to comprehend, what it is that certain people don't get about the idea.
When examining material that is not incorporated into the Star Wars universe itself, like statements of characters or statements about events/characters within the universe, you are always meeting the problem, that people, when making those statements, are not very likely to think about the (canon) SW universe as it is.
Gillard is a particularly good example for that. Gillard knows that there are no lightsaber styles, because he simply choreographed the fights, without designing such styles. Gillard knows that he created those choreographies following a certain level system that he designed with Lucas or Lucas designed for him. And of course, he makes statements from that position, from the point of view of a stunt coordinator that was choreographing lightsaber fights for the movie. But that is his field of vision: The movies and nothing but the movies. And that is the context you keep ignoring.
In the same way, George Lucas himself perceives "his" Star Wars universe. It's "movies only" because he doesn't bother to read anything published in the Expanded Universe. Not even following the events he does consider "canon" for his movies (e.g. Anakin getting a scar), which is pretty obvious from the RotS commentary, where he says that as far he is concerned, Anakin got that scar while slipping in the bathtub.
So more often than not, those people have a rather narrow focus, when they talk about Star Wars and it is kind of unreasonable to act as if that particular focus wasn't there. If Nick Gillard doesn't give a damn about the EU, he isn't going to incorporate lightsaber styles into his view, especially not, if he is asked about how he did the fight scenes from the movies. And if George Lucas doesn't read EU stuff, he's not going to think about it, when – for example - stating that Sidious is the most powerful Sith. Because from his view – and that is a "movie only" one – there isn't anything to argue about this because characters like Exar Kun or Revan or Vitiate don't even exist from his perspective.
Now, why can't such statements dictate "canon"? Because canon follows a completely different view. It assumes that the SW universe, as has been brought through life via canon sources is "real" and explains stuff from that perspective. So, of course, there are lightsaber styles within that universe, even though Nick Gillard designed none for the characters (so from his point of view he’s telling the "truth"). There are exotic force powers like the Shatterpoint ability, that will give Mace Windu the advantage in a confrontation. It is rather obvious for us that Sidious and Yoda are somewhat ahead of Mace Windu and Anakin in terms of force abilities and maybe lightsaber skill, even though – for Nick Gillard's purpose of designing the fight scenes – they are all on one level.
So no. I don't get why people attempt to hand in those statements, to prove their point in the context of an EU forum. It doesn't work without de-contextualizing those quotes first, which leads to an automatic misrepresentation of the speaker's original intention. If you find me a statement that says "RotS Anakin can defeat Sidious, Mace or Yoda" somewhere in the canon material, I'd love to see that. Until then, I'll stay with the – rather well supported – idea, that the RotS incarnation of Anakin would get his ass kicked if he were to confront people like Yoda or Sidious in combat.