Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Hell, I've even seen fans of both Maul and Savage posting about how they were disappointed on how easily Sidious handled them like jokes. Anyone who watched the fight knows Sidious was not really struggling at all.
Is there possible some grey zone in between "Sidious was struggling" and "Sidious stomped them"?
Originally posted by The_Tempest
The question then becomes: if Sidious was being legitimately challenged or threatened in the lightsaber duel, why did he not then crush the brothers with the Force?
That is the precise point, Gideon: He did.
Once he receives the boot to the face, the "toying" is pretty much over until the point where he removes Maul from the fight with that force push.
Did he feal "threatened"? Using the very argument that Sidious 66 is so quick to insert every time: He stops laughing. So, apparently, he is challenged to a greater extend than at the beginning of the duel. His clearly force aided kick against Savage, his snarling right after that and taking out Maul with a force push at least indicate, that he wasn't as pleased with the development of the fight. Don't you think so?
Whether it was necessary for him to remove one of the brothers from the fight temporarily to defeat them is an entirely different question. If you think, that he would have been capable of mustering the same power he used to slam them into the wall at the beginning of the fight while defending himself in close quarter combat against the duo, then the answer to that question is a pretty clear "Nope". If you ask for my personal opinion, he could have backed away from the infighting and kicked their asses with the force at any given time. But: That is a question, that the source material doesn't answer, and I would have liked it better, if it did just that. As it is, we can just speculate whether or not Sidious would have been capable of winning the fight that way.
We've been over this ad nauseam. Sidious clearly did restrain himself at certain points in the duel with Yoda when he foolishly believed Yoda wasn't in a position to threaten him (e.g., after he knocked Yoda out and after Yoda stopped his pod). But, unlike the brothers, Yoda evoked visible fear and struggle in Sidious.
My, Gideon.
On the same line of reasoning, one could say, that Yoda did clearly not expect the attack that gave Sidious the first advantage and would have been capable to answer it, given the fact that he does exactly that later. We can also say, that Sidious cleverly manouvered Yoda through a series of disadvantegeous positions during their confrontation and still didn't win it.
And the pod thing? What should Sidious have done? Try to push it down on Yoda? May I remind you that, after feeling Yoda's power first hand he tries to run away? Could it be possible that Sidious knew he couldn't win such a direct telekinetic contest and hence didn't even bother trying? After all, Yoda is responsible for some of the most insane telekinesis demonstrated throughout the saga.
Instead, the answer is "Sidious held back". And you call the statements of other people "otherworldly"?
It stands to reason that a person fighting to the death who is legitimately threatened by his enemy will throw everything up to and including the kitchen sink at his opponent to gain an advantage. It also stands to reason that he or she will not be in a place of joy or happiness during the contest. That Sidious did neither of these things suggest that he did not feel threatened during the swordfight either.
See above. He apparently felt threatened enough to resort to his force powers again, after going over a prolonged saber battle with the brothers.
And "everything they have"? I have, frankly, almost never seen a fight in the saga, where I would have said that all participating forces where giving it "all they had". Almost every important character in the saga has his "moments of grandeur", if one shall lable them as such, and then, all over a sudden, they aren't capable to even get close that previously demonstrated strength.
For this particular fight in question: We saw how Maul was capable of force rocketing Kenobi out of the scene, when the latter injured his brother and collapse the tunnel after the Jedi Master flew through with seemingly one swift application of the force. Why doesn't he attempt something similar against Sidious? After all, he could have left the infighting to savage for some moments to attempt a force attack. Likewise one could ask, why Opress doesn't muster the strength of his hatred to demonstrate anything even remotely compareable to his highmarks within the series.
While also pointing out that these guys were never going to win it. So how can they threaten him? How can a person legitimately threaten another if we know for a fact that A doesn't have a chance of winning?
How did Luke Skywalker beat the living crap out of Darth Vader during their final stages of their duel in RotJ? How does Savage the duo of Obi-Wan/Anakin aside or force chokes Ventress/Dooku? How did Maul muster the strength to attack Sidious who was just "barely" capable of fending off the blows of his apprentice after Maul went through his final testing as Sith?
Obviously, even those who, technically, shouldn't have a chance, are quite capable of occassionally threatening their superiors.
No, Filoni says Savage "lasts longer" than the B-team. That works just as well with the idea that Sidious allowed Savage to last longer. Which, coincidentally, is supported by Word of God.
🙄
Glossed over this:
Nai
*Sigh*
When people use the phrase "in fact", it would be marvelous if something even remotely resembling a fact would follow. In this case, it doesn't. In fact I haven't been posting on this forum between January and September 2013. In fact, before that, my absense almost lasted from July to December 2012 (and before that, from January to May). So in fact I'm not even here to argue as much as you - apparently - want me to.And even then, I merely react. There is hardly a thread in this forum, in which Sidious isn't featured. If he isn't part of the starting post already, some issue regarding Sidious comes up, and I just reply. I have neither started any thread with the intention of Sidious losing, nor did I start many of the "Sidious debates" going on in this forum.
In fact, my personal thought on the issue of Sidious standing relative to his fellow Sith Lords is not as far away from you or Gideon as you may think. But I arrived there from a quite different angle, which is not applicable in the context of versus fights, and most of the reasoning the duo of yourself and Tempest presents here is an insult to every halfway intelligent person.
Finally: I'm here for the sake of arguments. I don't care about changing people's opinion. I'm just practicing my English here, in combination with analysis based on deconstruction. The results? Not important. Existing opposition is. So, and I asked Gideon this question several times before: What should I do? Argue in favor for Sidious and give the Sith Lord another mouthpiece here? Hardly.
Nai
Nope. I weren't "called out". Gideon asserted that this is the case, and after I performed some digging into my posting history, he had that argument crushed so hard, that he didn't dare to pursue this line of thought further. I wonder, why you haven't learned from your brother-at-arms.Glancing into my posting history, you can find me arguing against the Ancient Sith, against Kun (often represented by IKC). I've sided with Yoda against Kun and Revan, than talked the Jedi Master down again. I've sided with Dooku in some threads and talked him down in others. I've even utilized "pro-Sidious" arguments, in order to argue for Yoda, while attacking the same arguments at the same time in another thread. So what?
And, I see, you have ignored my words again: That I argue you, has nothing to do with yourself. I, frankly, don't care if you change your opinion or see the error of your ways. I'm just here for the fun. And that would by my fun, specifically.
This might be agreeable if your post history didn't reveal that the times you've argued "for" Sidious are VASTLY outweighed by the times you've argued "against" him. And this goes all the way back to 2005 when Marka Ragnos had more mouthpieces than Sidious.
So... you can claim all day, every day, that you're merely playing the Devil's advocate, trying to upend the status quo... but that's bullshit. If it weren't, you'd have been at Janus's and Illustrious's throat as much as mine.
With that, I must regretfully inform you that your account of events has been
(I'd like to try to keep this in one thread, BTW)
Originally posted by Nai
Is there possible some grey zone in between "Sidious was struggling" and "Sidious stomped them"?
Originally posted by Nai
That is the precise point, Gideon: [b]He did.
Once he receives the boot to the face, the "toying" is pretty much over until the point where he removes Maul from the fight with that force push.[/b]
I think you're getting the duel's sequences confused. Sidious doesn't take a boot to the face until after Savage is killed and then he ends the duel in the next move, physically overpowering Maul in their saber lock.
Originally posted by Nai
Did he feal "threatened"? Using the very argument that Sidious 66 is so quick to insert every time: He stops laughing. So, apparently, he is challenged to a greater extend than at the beginning of the duel. His clearly force aided kick against Savage, his snarling right after that and taking out Maul with a force push at least indicate, that he wasn't as pleased with the development of the fight. Don't you think so?
That Sidious uses a "Force-aided kick" against Opress doesn't mean he's on the ropes; Sidious is a 60ish year old politician and Opress and Maul are enormously powerful physically. Of course he's going to use the Force to aid him in the duel: just like Yoda and Dooku.
One might argue he was "snarling" in order to deceive Maul into thinking he was angry and/or fatigued. After he neatly disposes of Maul, he's all smiles again.
Originally posted by Nai
Whether it was necessary for him to remove one of the brothers from the fight temporarily to defeat them is an entirely different question. If you think, that he would have been capable of mustering the same power he used to slam them into the wall at the beginning of the fight while defending himself in close quarter combat against the duo, then the answer to that question is a pretty clear "Nope". If you ask for my personal opinion, he could have backed away from the infighting and kicked their asses with the force at any given time. [b]But: That is a question, that the source material doesn't answer, and I would have liked it better, if it did just that. As it is, we can just speculate whether or not Sidious would have been capable of winning the fight that way.[/b]
Or we could go with the supervising director's words on the matter and conclude he was spanking them as persistently and gleefully as I with Neph on a Friday night.
Originally posted by Nai
My, Gideon.
On the same line of reasoning, one could say, that Yoda did clearly not expect the attack that gave Sidious the first advantage and would have been capable to answer it, given the fact that he does exactly that later. We can also say, that Sidious cleverly manouvered Yoda through a series of disadvantegeous positions during their confrontation and still didn't win it.
No one said anything about whether Yoda was prepared for Sidious's attack. What was said is that Sidious did attack, it was successful, and he did not pursue his advantage even when Yoda was unconscious.
Originally posted by Nai
And the pod thing? What should Sidious have done? Try to push it down on Yoda? May I remind you that, after feeling Yoda's power first hand he tries to run away? Could it be possible that Sidious knew he couldn't win such a direct telekinetic contest and hence didn't even bother trying? After all, Yoda is responsible for some of the most insane telekinesis demonstrated throughout the saga.
Thrown another pod? Thrown two more pods? Thrown three more? Ran? Called for backup? Launched another volley of Force lightning? Anything but stand there and laugh while his opponent musters his defenses?
Originally posted by Nai
See above. He apparently felt threatened enough to resort to his force powers again, after going over a prolonged saber battle with the brothers.
Or he opted to take half the team out of the running so he could toy with the other unmolested.
Originally posted by Nai
And "everything they have"? I have, frankly, almost never seen a fight in the saga, where I would have said that all participating forces where giving it "all they had". Almost every important character in the saga has his "moments of grandeur", if one shall lable them as such, and then, all over a sudden, they aren't capable to even get close that previously demonstrated strength.For this particular fight in question: We saw how Maul was capable of force rocketing Kenobi out of the scene, when the latter injured his brother and collapse the tunnel after the Jedi Master flew through with seemingly one swift application of the force. Why doesn't he attempt something similar against Sidious? After all, he could have left the infighting to savage for some moments to attempt a force attack. Likewise one could ask, why Opress doesn't muster the strength of his hatred to demonstrate anything even remotely compareable to his highmarks within the series.
Perhaps because Sidious is beyond their ability to TK?
Originally posted by Nai
How did Luke Skywalker beat the living crap out of Darth Vader during their final stages of their duel in RotJ?
Not sure how this is relevant. When Luke summoned his rage, he was clearly the dominant fighter.
Originally posted by Nai
How does Savage the duo of Obi-Wan/Anakin aside or force chokes Ventress/Dooku?
Again, not sure how this is relevant. When Savage performed well against Obi-Wan/Anakin or Dooku/Ventress, he obviously did have a chance of winning.
...Which is contrary to what DARTH POWER is saying.
Originally posted by Nai
How did Maul muster the strength to attack Sidious who was just "barely" capable of fending off the blows of his apprentice after Maul went through his final testing as Sith?
Again, through rage. And I'm not saying someone can't momentarily have an advantage against an otherwise clear superior.
But DARTH POWER is alleging that the Zabraks didn't have a chance of beating Sidious and yet threatened him throughout the entire lightsaber duel. That's a far cry from a brief advantage due to circumstance and/or rage.
Nai
[...]and most of the reasoning the duo of yourself and Tempest presents here is an insult to every halfway intelligent person.
Come to think of it, if our arguments are really that bad, one wonders why you bother to address them at all. If your positions are so flexible and you genuinely desire a challenge, why would your illustrious presence waste time with the likes of SIDIOUS_66 and myself.
Unless, of course, you really hate us and His Imperial Majesty.
QED
Originally posted by The_Tempest
This might be agreeable if your post history didn't reveal that the times you've argued "for" Sidious are VASTLY outweighed by the times you've argued "against" him. And this goes all the way back to 2005 when Marka Ragnos had more mouthpieces than Sidious.
Yeah, Gideon.
This is one of those things your confirmation bias keeps you from getting right. Sidious support was always high in this forum, starting with threads in which people happily agreed that Sidious would totally destroy a duo of Dooku/Maul fighting against him, without even breaking a sweat and ending with almost every voting-thread that featured Sidious on one side.
Sure. Many people supporting Sidious weren't voicing their opinion in elaborated replies that often. They were present nontheless. And the fact, that Sidious is the most supported Sith Lord is no surprise: He is - Vader aside - the one most prominently featured in the SW source material and definitely the most powerful Sith Lord in the movies, which is all that many people (even here) care about.
So. Go check the real history of this subforum, instead imagining one, where you could assume the roll of the first disciple of the great forum Messiah Lightsnake, who "enlightened" the place. Because, frankly, that version is so far away from the truth one needs reality warping powers to even get close to the place.
So... you can claim all day, every day, that you're merely playing the Devil's advocate, trying to upend the status quo... but that's bullshit. If it weren't, you'd have been at Janus's and Illustrious's throat as much as mine.
Now read that again, please and start thinking.
The "status quo" since the depature of the Antedeluvians (hint: in 2007) is "Sidious > ALL". So whom should I be attacking, if not the "front figure" of the movement, playing the Devil's Advocate? In the days when the likes of Illustrious and IKC were active here, I was being at their throat often enough. And not just here. You may just want to remember the "Luke Skywalker vs Lord Voldemort" debate over at EoD in that lineage of threads and various debates regarding the power of the PT era Jedi in comparison to their TOTJ era counterparts.
So I had two years of arguing the likes of IKC and Illustrious and eight years for you. What a surprise, that you were targeted more often. And even then, it more often than not hadn't much to do with your opinions but with your methods of forming arguments. The "be all end all" quotes being a prime example among those.
With that, I must regretfully inform you that your account of events has been
I don't think so. But, please, keep basking in your illusions.
(I'd like to try to keep this in one thread, BTW)
Then why do you bring it here?
There's so much straw in your posts these days; henceforth, I shall refer to you as Farmer Joe.
First, the antediluvians pretty much reigned supreme here before Lightsnake came along. Were they entirely unopposed? No, but then no SWVF regime truly was. That said, it's always easy to distinguish the Davids from the Goliaths. And there was a time that they were the Goliaths.
That you mention a scenario or two where you opposed Illustrious or IKC doesn't actually address my point: I didn't claim that you never opposed them. But bias is an indication of inclination and/or tendency and your unquestionable tendency was to proudly wave the tattered banner of Mark A. Ragnos and Friends more than not. Even when such a platform was dominant.
[Obviously I don't expect you to oppose people who are no longer active; duh.]
In conclusion, I find your defense for your anti-Sidious rhetoric to be utterly hollow. Perhaps if you ruthlessly and persistently prosecuted the same war against the antediluvians. But you didn't.
And as far as using quotes are concerned, Janus kindly admitted the other day that antediluvians were guilty of the same.
In other words, we were all in the same boat but you were terribly selective about who walked the plank.
As a Packer fan, I say Wallace sucks and Tolzien although seemingly better, isn't enough to get the Packers in the playoffs. If Rodgers is out 6 weeks, we [packer fans] are unquestionably doomed. If he doesn't play in four weeks and neither Wallace nor Tolzien manage to win 1 or 2 games, we are also positively doomed. So yeah, it's not looking pretty good right now. How sad it was to watch today's game.
It hurt.
The packers aren't making the playoffs without Rodgers, and Rodgers isn't coming back from a broken collarbone in 4 weeks. I don't care how many varsity blues/brett favre drugs he takes. The most disappointing thing about yesterday was Kaepernick and the Niners. They look like a completely different team from last year. Yes, they have a few injuries but not enough to justify the lack of focus.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
I think you're getting the duel's sequences confused. Sidious doesn't take a boot to the face until after Savage is killed and then he ends the duel in the next move, physically overpowering Maul in their saber lock.
I was referring to Savage kicking him down from the balcony. From there on, no laughing and playing until Maul is out of the way.
That Sidious uses a "Force-aided kick" against Opress doesn't mean he's on the ropes; Sidious is a 60ish year old politician and Opress and Maul are enormously powerful physically. Of course he's going to use the Force to aid him in the duel: just like Yoda and Dooku.
There is a difference between using the force to aid your movement speed / strength for lightsaber fencing, or utilizing it to speed up / strengthen a kick so much, that it lifts somebody like Opress from the ground and leaves him stunned for several seconds.
One might argue he was "snarling" in order to deceive Maul into thinking he was angry and/or fatigued.
What would that be good for?
After he neatly disposes of Maul, he's all smiles again.
The keyword being "after".
Or we could go with the supervising director's words on the matter and conclude he was spanking them as persistently and gleefully as I with Neph on a Friday night.
It's still not, what is shown on screen. I didn't link you to Roland Barthes and the "Death of the Author" without reason.
No one said anything about whether Yoda was prepared for Sidious's attack. What was said is that Sidious did attack, it was successful, and he did not pursue his advantage even when Yoda was unconscious.
Yoda was on the ground for a few seconds, Gideon. Yes. Sidious probably didn't perceive him as threat then. Then let us reverse this: Yoda also didn't cut Sidious into pieces, while the Sith Lord was recovering from getting shoved across his desk. And this after knowing what Sidious was capable of with the Force. So he had more reason to capitalize on that disadvantage than Sidious did, yet doesn't. Instead, he is quite eager to confront the Sith Lord directly, while Sidious is about to run. To me, that looks as if Yoda was quite confident that he would win this, while Sidious, on the other side, was at least not keen on taking that chance.
And, quite frankly, that's only logical if we follow the idea, that Sidious was beaten by Mace in combat. Why would he even attempt to duke it out with the even more powerful Yoda?
Thrown another pod? Thrown two more pods? Thrown three more? Ran? Called for backup? Launched another volley of Force lightning? Anything but stand there and laugh while his opponent musters his defenses?
And the point being?
He had already torn apart half of the Senate chamber, with Yoda not really hard-pressed dodging those pods. Ran? Well. That is what he finally does, doesn't he? Backup was already on its way, so no need of calling some. Force lightning? With a solid object between him and his target?
Oh. I'm rather certain that he could have used his time better, but that hardly indicates any kind of superiority on his part. Confidence, because he was in superior position? Possible. But then not enough confidence to counter Yoda's attack there, as it seems.
Or he opted to take half the team out of the running so he could toy with the other unmolested.
If he was toying with both of them, that doesn't make much sense now, does it?
Perhaps because Sidious is beyond their ability to TK?
Did I miss the point, where Sidious had some ability up, neglecting every TK attack on his person automatically, unless that attack came from somebody equally / more powerful?
Not sure how this is relevant. When Luke summoned his rage, he was clearly the dominant fighter.
Again, not sure how this is relevant. When Savage performed well against Obi-Wan/Anakin or Dooku/Ventress, he obviously did have a chance of winning.
I wonder if you did see the same CW cartoons that I watched.
When Savage goes up against Dooku and Ventress, they do throw him right out of the room with their force abilities. Could he have countered that? I don't think so. And Anakin / Obi-Wan are essentially having a nice tea conversation while moving away from Savage unleashing his onslaught. Not looking that hard pressed by the Zabrak.
Again, through rage. And I'm not saying someone can't momentarily have an advantage against an otherwise clear superior.But DARTH POWER is alleging that the Zabraks didn't have a chance of beating Sidious and yet threatened him throughout the entire lightsaber duel. That's a far cry from a brief advantage due to circumstance and/or rage.
Well, Gideon
That's kind of the point: When inferior combatants can receive a boost that enables them to withstand or even overpower superior counterparts, then, even if you are clearly superior to your opposition as a Jedi / Sith, you have to expect, that something like this could happen. So there is always some kind of threat, no matter how off-chance it may be.
So maybe Sidious, being aware of that possibility, just wanted to play it save. Maybe he just fealt threatened for a very brief time period (between getting kicked from the balcony and taking Maul out of the fight), which led to his decission to remove one of them from the fight.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
First, the antediluvians pretty much reigned supreme here before Lightsnake came along. Were they entirely unopposed? No, but then no SWVF regime truly was. That said, it's always easy to distinguish the Davids from the Goliaths. And there was a time that they were the Goliaths.
D'uh. No, bro.
"Sidious" was ruling unopposed, before Illustrious, IKC and myself came along. And the "Antedeluvians" were named moving against Revan fanboys and not Sidious supporters. Who still always were the vast majority of people in this forum, believe it or not.
That you mention a scenario or two where you opposed Illustrious or IKC doesn't actually address my point: I didn't claim that you never opposed them. But bias is an indication of inclination and/or tendency and your unquestionable tendency was to proudly wave the tattered banner of Mark A. Ragnos and Friends more than not. Even when such a platform was dominant.
*Sigh*
I, quite frankly, have enough of that rubbish, Gideon. I've told you multiple times, that I don't argue my personal convictions here, I have made allusions - and you've even quoted one of them right above - that I'm rather more on your side on that particular question, than on the other. That you have chosen to outright ignore all of this, isn't my problem now, is it?
The last time you brought this topic up, I gave you a nice number of links, showing rather well how I've argued the superiority of Ancient Sith, Kun, TOTJ era Jedi against the PT era Jedi [with all possible implications about Sidious going from there]. You even complained about me using pro-Sidious argument in one thread while attacking them on another at the same time.
And I frankly don't see a reason why I should lie in that regard. If I felt the urge for "Anti Sidious rhetorics", I would first dissemble your essay and then tear the character of Sidious to shreds. He is just a villain of a franchise, that was called "B-movie material" by its own maker. I could give you a rather long list of fictional characters, that make Sidious look like a bad substitute for a good one. But where would be a point of that in the context of this very forum?
So what is your point, aside of crying how bad and unfriendly Uncle Nai was to you? None. Well. Thought so.
In conclusion, I find your defense for your anti-Sidious rhetoric to be utterly hollow. Perhaps if you ruthlessly and persistently prosecuted the same war against the antediluvians. But you didn't.
And once more.
"Anti Sidious rhetoric"? It's more an anti-fanboy rhetoric, with you being on the receiving side due to your own choices. I've cramped enough philosophical explanations and hints regarding logic in eight years worth of postings, in order to enable you to change the way you make arguments. You refused to use it, and stick to your old ways, pointing to your essay over and over again.
After that you complain about getting lectured on the same flaws in your reasoning by me. Seriously? That's like touching a hotplate, after getting told that it is hot, just to get burned and then touch it once again just to complain about getting burned a second time. Does that make sense on your side of the fence?
And as far as using quotes are concerned, Janus kindly admitted the other day that antediluvians were guilty of the same.
Oh. I've seen, what Janus has "admitted". Yet, I've never seen one of the Antedeluvians running around with a blind faith on a single quote. That's why it never was "Sidious vs Ragnos", but an offering of a rather long list of challengers "vs Sidious", right?
Neither can I remember to have posted an argument that consisted of nothing but one quote regarding a character, or having had an expectation, that such a quote would be the end of all kind of debate regarding a character.
And, that aside: There is a difference between using quotes and believing in quotes, Gideon. I, for myself, believe in nothing. Or, let me rephrase that: There is no value for me, in knowing who is "the most powerful fictional character in a fictional universe" is. There a few things that I could care less about. Then why am I posting here? Aside from the reasons I've stated (English skills, practicing some deconstruction) and enjoying the SW franchise in general I like educating. As Sir Terry Pratchett did once note: "Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on."
In other words, we were all in the same boat but you were terribly selective about who walked the plank.
Of course. Because I was the one, who did stick to one particular opinion to fanatically defend it like a rabid fanboy, right?
Oh, wait. You just admitted that this wasn't the case. So I was the least selective about who walked the plank, as long as someone did walk it. That you volunteered for the task every other day is, most certainly, not my fault. Aye?