Carth Onasi vs. Han Solo

Started by Ushgarak6 pages

Originally posted by Deus Ex
Agreed. ANd really, define Galactic Legend for us? You don't think someone they call a hero of the Mandalorian and Jedi Civil Wars is weaker than a smuggler who got tied up in the rebellion against the Empire?

What qualifies as a "Galactic Legend"?

Someone who is a legend in the Galaxy. Han was directly responsible for victory in the greatest battles of his age and was a massive hero of the Rebel Alliance, the dominant power at that time.

Carth happened to have fought in the wars. No comparison- he is no legend.

No, that's not the general trend at all, in fact, when it comes to military rank in Star Wars. Dunno where you got that idea from.

Name exceptions to the trend and I'll name you more individuals that follow this trend.

That's what a "trend" is. It's not infallable, but it is association.

If you're attempting to convince people that Star Wars leaders recruit their high ranking officials from the bottom of the barrel, you're going to need to prove it.

And it;s not up to me to prove negatives, but for you to prove popsitives., There is nothing proving that Carth is competent as an Admiral, and that's the trick.

By going against logic and reasoning, you are the one attempting to prove a positive. You use Han being considered famous in everything he does as justification, yet being a War Hero doesn't quite work?

And again, I'll remind you that Palpatine's rise to power is directly related to his power as a Sith, and this has an important mythological resonance that it is very important that you should recognise in these films. It;s not even vaguely irrelevant. By that logic, if any Sith before Palpatine had been as good as him, he would have succeeded.

You also have to recognize the temporal significance.

The Ancient Sith were known threats long before they could even hope of infiltrating the Republic.

Do you really think the Republic would simply let some person that LOOKS like a threat (Ragnos or Sadow) and allow them to manipulate the Republic into their palm? Hardly.

In the same way, would Hitler have taken over Germany if it was 1900 instead of 1930? No. The circumstancse lined up for him perfectly.

And again, even this "power as a Sith" does not indicate he would swing a glowstick better than another individual. That is where the "irrelevance" lies.

You're going to have to PROVE that Political prowess = Lightsaber/battle prowess.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Someone who is a legend in the Galaxy. Han was directly responsible for victory in the greatest battles of his age and was a massive hero of the Rebel Alliance, the dominant power at that time.

Carth happened to have fought in the wars. No comparison- he is no legend.

This is yourinterpretation of a legend in the Galaxy, not the standard one, Ush. Being directly responsible for ship battles does NOT equate victory in blaster or melee combat.

Second, Carth himself was instrumental in the victory of the Republic over the Sith forces in his time in not one but two wars.

Little oversight there, huh?

You just CAN'T compare Videogames to movies.

Originally posted by Tangible God
You just CAN'T compare Videogames to movies.

Or books or comics or anyting else, huh? Simply because we see movies they supercede all in versus threads?

With a mindset like that, why bother at all with these Eu characters? I know... let's have movie only versus threads, since all else is apparently under the realm of Some People Don't Want To Consider It(tm) and then we can go completely dead as a forum because it'll be a total of.... twenty threads.

I like how the shift went from Han winning to you can't compare them. Why is it when people are confronted with the possibility that the viewpoint can be different they claim a mistrial?

Originally posted by Tangible God
You just CAN'T compare Videogames to movies.

How so? Are feats in Videogames diminished compared to feats in movies? Would outdueling a video game character be less impressive than outdueling a character in a movie?

The problem with videogames isn't that it's incomparable, it's that it too often too amorphous and indefinite. However, if there are adequate FMVs or a canon ending/route taken, then of course the same feats are comparable.

Remember that movies are oftentimes that interpretation of the director/producer/screenwriter/choreographer. If a videogame is represented as in continuity, there is no reason why you can't compare the same RESULTS. No one is talking about comparing gameplay to movie action.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Someone who is a legend in the Galaxy. Han was directly responsible for victory in the greatest battles of his age and was a massive hero of the Rebel Alliance, the dominant power at that time.

Carth happened to have fought in the wars. No comparison- he is no legend.


Actually, he was a legend. Talk to some of the NPC's in KOTOR1, they all say how amazing Carth is. Hell, even Bastila, queen of the uber bitches says that they're in good hands because Carth is with them.

I'm just saying There's not enough on Carth to make it far.

Han's got three movies and a slew of EU after and before the movies to prove his worth.

Carth's got KOTOR. That's it, we get a description of him during the Mandalorian Wars. We don't get much detail on them. Since the game no longer counts as merit, KOTOR events are out.

Whoa whoa... since when does the game "not count for merit"...

When it actually came to them dukin it out, Carth's amazing ability to be slashed with a lightsaber and live by healing himself instantaneously with a magic medkit, doesn't count.

Yeah, gameplay doesn't. Established EU facts in game do.

But does he have enough of Established facts of Eu to compare with Han? 'Cause I'm pretty sure Han did alot more.

Janus etc.. there is no debate, han simply wins...

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Janus etc.. there is no debate, han simply wins...

First off, nothing in life or fiction is this certain. this is ignorance.

Second, TG- more evidence doesn't neccessarily equate to winning in a damn fight. We have more records of Patton or Rommel, but I'm sure Charlemagne would whup their ass in a fight.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
First off, nothing in life or fiction is this certain. this is ignorance.

Second, TG- more evidence doesn't neccessarily equate to winning in a damn fight. We have more records of Patton or Rommel, but I'm sure Charlemagne would whup their ass in a fight.

There is only one thing in this world that is absolute, han comes out alive.

I think you're kidding now, GV. I know you're notorious for being off your rocker, but now I think you're just toying with me.

Anyways, to say Han has this, he has more material, and that's a wrap is gonna be the final nail in the coffin of this near-dead place.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
I think you're kidding now, GV. I know you're notorious for being off your rocker, but now I think you're just toying with me.

Anyways, to say Han has this, he has more material, and that's a wrap is gonna be the final nail in the coffin of this near-dead place.

Lol

I knew it!

lol

That poor baby.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
First off, nothing in life or fiction is this certain. this is ignorance.

Second, TG- more evidence doesn't neccessarily equate to winning in a damn fight. We have more records of Patton or Rommel, but I'm sure Charlemagne would whup their ass in a fight.

Of course. But since these are not real people, we can only go by what we know, and what is told. By that, Han has more, plain and simple.