Meh... Even the "ugly" characters in marvel/DC are hotter.
Also:
Looks like Maul/Savage plays a huge role in season 3. Uggh.
Meh... Even the "ugly" characters in marvel/DC are hotter.
Also:
Looks like Maul/Savage plays a huge role in season 3. Uggh.
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanWhoa. Where did this come from?
Marka Ragnos can be established as at least "above-average" in power, by examining the Jedi Academy events. However, contrary to popular opinion, TotJ pretty much does nothing to establish his badassery.The most common quotes attributed to his TotJ feats are the "most powerful of powerful" quote, which lacks context to the point it's basically inadmissible as evidence of anything.
The second thing is that he managed to rule with an iron fist for over a century in a marshal environment where only the strong rule. This may sound impressive at a glance, but it loses its grandeur when you notice that:
1. None of the ancient sith showed any impressive abilities that would make reigning over them all an impressive feat.
It's noted that many of them were the off-spring of diluted, watered down family lines which have decreased in power with every generation. Furthermore, the most impressive active combat ability we see an ancient sith use without being empowered by some force relic is throwing a brick. Simus managed to survive getting his head cut off via the force, which sounds awesome, until it turns out that for all his force mastery, he was completely unable to protect himself from a single blaster bolt. Wow.
2. The ancient sith were all incompetent, bumbling morons with the exception of Naga Sadow and Ludo Kressh.
In a "martial society where only the strong rule", you would have expected the mantle of Dark Lord of the Sith to be decided by something akin to a massive game of manipulation, honor duels to the death and mafia-esque power struggles. Instead, two lightly armed republic "scouts" show up begging and pleading for their lives is enough to make the entire Sith council shit themselves and elect Naga Sadow to DlotS after he gives a single five minute speech. <-- This is not indicative of a ruthless society in which only the biggest kid on the block rules. It's indicative of a society run by greedy, easily manipulated bureaucrats. It's kind of ironic in a way that some people contest the idea of Sideous being the strongest on the basis that he conquered the Galaxy via being politically savvy, because Naga Sadow did the same thing, and if he was able to do it, it's very possible that other past DlotS were able to do it, Ragnos included. There's certainly nothing that says otherwise.
There's another line of thought that points to the fact that Ragnos was able to come back from the dead and talk to the Sith, as well as make them all shit themselves. Surely, if a dead man can pop up and make everyone shit themselves, he must be immensely powerful. Not really, because:
1. It's stated by Ragnos upon his appearance that the entirety of the dark side was empowering his return, which implies that he had outside help in this endeavor.
2. Not everyone was shtting themselves when he came back. Ludo Kresh did, but Ludo Kresh was also established early on to be an ass-kissing *****-nigga. Naga Sadow certainly wasn't shitting himself. He kneeled before Ragnos, but he also talked a lot of shit to Ragnos' face. The first thing he says when Ragnos appears was basically "FFS, you're dead. Stay out of our affairs". After Ragnos disappears and Ludo Kresh implores the Sith to listen to Ragnos' commands, Naga Sadow's reply is basically "**** Marka Ragnos, I deserve to be in charge now". Not exactly the most solid signs of fealty.
Finally, some people are impressed by the fact that Odan Urr was rattled by Ragnos' appearance, despite being halfway across the galaxy, stating that just manifesting himself in the real world was creating force shockwaves throughout the galaxy. Sounds good, but no dice because Odan Urr was the only Jedi in the galaxy who felt it. The other Jedi, in the room right next to his, felt nothing at all. Thus, it's more likely that Odan Urr was simply extra sensitive to such things.
TL;DR: Besides his feats in JA, there is literally nothing at all in the mythos that gives us any sort of concrete of his power, especially in a combat situation. There isn't even really any anecdotal evidence.
Windows got ****ed and wouldn't get past the welcome screen. I'd just be staring at 'Welcome' for 40 minutes until I did a hard reset and went into Safe Mode. I spent the time trying to fix the problem and eventually had to reboot windows altogether.
2 days without Skyrim. It was so hard. ;_;
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
1. None of the ancient sith showed any impressive abilities that would make reigning over them all an impressive feat.
Not true. We know that the ancient Sith Lords had access to Nihilus' Giga Drain ability, and that they possessed equipment that could enable them to blow up suns, among other things. Recall that Exar Kun's amulet, which everyone admits is overpowered, comes from the Golden Age as well. The ancient Sith Lords had plenty going for them.
Originally posted by NephthysWhich is my point. Without their relics, they have nothing.
Windows got ****ed and wouldn't get past the welcome screen. I'd just be staring at 'Welcome' for 40 minutes until I did a hard reset and went into Safe Mode. I spent the time trying to fix the problem and eventually had to reboot windows altogether.2 days without Skyrim. It was so hard. ;_;
Not true. We know that the ancient Sith Lords had access to Nihilus' Giga Drain ability, and that they possessed equipment that could enable them to blow up suns, among other things. Recall that Exar Kun's amulet, which everyone admits is overpowered, comes from the Golden Age as well. The ancient Sith Lords had plenty going for them.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Which is my point. Without their relics, they have nothing.
This is an entirely useless way of evaluating people.
"X created relic Y, which gives power well beyond Z. X is nothing, because without their relics they cannot be objectively measuredapparently must be weak as kittens, never mind that they had the knowledge and mastery to make such relics. We'll also gloss over the fact that almost all of the cosmic level uber Force traits are Sith-only and a large part of those descending from or belonging to almost exclusively the ancient Sith, their immediate heirs, and less frequently their chosen heirs. Also, because Simus didn't deflect a blaster bolt with his head that was pulled on him by his apprentice, you know, a weapon not found in the Sith empire at that time (As Sadow marks it is a largely inferior weapon) he must therefore be a moron. This is where I totally ignore lower showings by other greats, such as Darth Sidious being chucked over his desk and chair like an old newspaper."
Context is important. I didn't bother to nitpick your assessment because quite frankly I know you wouldn't budge an inch. But that statement was just begging to be corrected. Exar Kun has exponential amounts of Dark side power and rage because of his amulets. Exar Kun as a Sith is -never- without his amulets. Therefore, it is illogical to argue Sith Lord Kun is weak without his amulets, because we literally have no bar to measure him against in that context. Your argument falls flat.
What I meant was that the presence of those relics makes it untrue that ruling over the ancient Sith was unimpressive. Maintaining control of Sith Lords with access to the ability to create supernova's, unblockably drain anyone of life and amplify their rage thousands of time and shoot fvckoff lasers isn't something to sneeze at.
Its simply untrue that the ancient Sith didn't have anything that would make ruling over them impressive. They do.
Originally posted by Zampanó
Yes, because being willing to switch to a viewpoint is a prerequisite to criticize a viewpoint.Spoiler:
<bait bait bait>
I simply can't imagine a situation where a movie critic would need to be able to make films as skillfully as, say, Christopher Nolan, in order to be qualified to critique the movie.
I simply can't imagine a movie critic who can't make films as skillfully as Christopher Nolan.
Janus need not waver from his ancient fanboyism in order to critique Blax's argument, but to call Blax out for maintaining an uncompromising anti-Ragnos sentiment {that was not espoused nearly as often as Janus's pro-Ragnos sentiment} is silly.
Originally posted by Col. Novine
I simply can't imagine a movie critic who can't make films as skillfully as Christopher Nolan.Janus need not waver from his ancient fanboyism in order to critique Blax's argument, but to call Blax out for maintaining an uncompromising anti-Ragnos sentiment {that was not espoused nearly as often as Janus's pro-Ragnos sentiment} is silly.
You seem touchy. I hope none of the regulars have been intimidating you; we're always welcome to new members!