Juyo vs Makashi - Maul vs Dooku (lightsaber only)

Originally posted by ares834
Lesser... He won due to Maul's stupidity. Maul, like Anakin, is superior than Obi-Wan at the techniqual aspects of fighting, however Obi-Wan is superior in the mental aspects of fighting. Thus he was able to defat them both.

At last we've clarified that.

Anyway, as to who wins this, I'll probably go with Tyrannus due to his experience.

No, the one not subscribing to logic here is you. I could list off several sources indicating Dooku's inferiority to Yoda, where he most definitely realized he couldn't beat him.

LS, randomly attacking me out of left field and misconstruing points? That's so out of character.

I never argued Dooku as superior in reference to Yoda, but it's quite clear that he left because staying to fight would result in Dooku potentially getting captured by the Republic forces. Remember, he was fleeing with the plans for the Death Star. This isn't an arena where he can just sit and fight for his own ego. He was an idealist. Get it straight.

So if you have sources, prove up or shut up. I don't have a whole lot of respect for your debating style when you pull this kind of crap. Everyone else here is being respectful, and you come in swinging your opinion like it's a giant belt buckle. Either respectfully disagree with me and prove up, or stow it.

Don't mistake your interpretation as canon. Maul was temporarily taken aback against a much fiercer foe, but he seized control and won the saber portion of their fight. His mistake was taking time to gloat

I'm not mistaking my interpretation, LS. Apparently, you need to learn how to read, because you like to haul off and attack my posts without taking them into context.

Let's spell this one out for you in the nicest way possible:

Obi-Wan Kenobi's rage fueled assault floored Maul, who had his saber cut in half and was literally put on his ass.

Are you going to dispute that at all? Or do you just fly into threads and challenge my viewpoints without any intention of debating properly? You need to stop straw manning and attacking points I'm not arguing if you ever want to be taken seriously. I'm not arguing Obi-Wan >>> Maul in any way shape or form, but simply acknowledging what the movie shows us. Again, get it straight.

It doesn't matter if it sounded bogus to you. Bad choreography has always been an issue in Star Wars. Qui-Gon's got quite a few accolades that aside.

This kind of blind acceptance of EU statements which lack any kind of movie-canon substantiation is typical for you. The three jedi who got shish-kabob'd in RotS against Sidious were the "best of the whole order OMFG" according to some random quote, and you held it as gospel, instead of being smart enough to realize that quotes and sentences taken out of context or not substantiated aren't logical conclusions by themselves. If I say that Coleman Trebor is the best lightsaber duelist present at Genoshia and the movie canon doesn't back me up (Or even outright contradicts me), then obviously my quote has no bearing on reason, does it?

There's nothing to show TPM Mace in any way, nor is there anything to substantiate that Qui-Gon is one of the best Jedi in fighting in the Order, especially since his skill is dwarfed repeatedly by other Jedi later in the Clone Wars. This statement by its own isn't sufficient.

Originally posted by chilled monkey
No, it's simple truth.

And how exactly is it 'irrelevant' when it elaborates on part of the reason Kenobi 'beat' Maul (environmental factors)?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
LS, randomly attacking me out of left field and misconstruing points? That's so out of character.

I never argued Dooku as superior in reference to Yoda, but it's quite clear that he left because staying to fight would result in Dooku potentially getting captured by the Republic forces. Remember, he was fleeing with the plans for the Death Star. This isn't an arena where he can just sit and fight for his own ego. He was an idealist. Get it straight.

I'm not mistaking my interpretation, LS. Apparently, you need to learn how to read, because you like to haul off and attack my posts without taking them into context.

Let's spell this one out for you in the nicest way possible:

[b]Obi-Wan Kenobi's rage fueled assault floored Maul, who had his saber cut in half and was literally put on his ass.

Are you going to dispute that at all? Or do you just fly into threads and challenge my viewpoints without any intention of debating properly? You need to stop straw manning and attacking points I'm not arguing if you ever want to be taken seriously. I'm not arguing Obi-Wan >>> Maul in any way shape or form, but simply acknowledging what the movie shows us. Again, get it straight.

This kind of blind acceptance of EU statements which lack any kind of movie-canon substantiation is typical for you. The three jedi who got shish-kabob'd in RotS against Sidious were the "best of the whole order OMFG" according to some random quote, and you held it as gospel, instead of being smart enough to realize that quotes and sentences taken out of context or not substantiated aren't logical conclusions by themselves. If I say that Coleman Trebor is the best lightsaber duelist present at Genoshia and the movie canon doesn't back me up (Or even outright contradicts me), then obviously my quote has no bearing on reason, does it?

I could give plenty other examples of how you're wrong in this instance in regards to substantiation or how it's just one random quote. In fact? The Complete Visual Dictionary cites them all as “a trio of celebrated swordmasters,” and Windu himself refer the assembled team as “four of the best [Masters].” The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia mentions that “Kolar was a tough combatant, and diplomacy was not his strong suit,” and that “Tiin was known for his foresight and ability to see the future,” and proclaims Fisto “a mighty warrior.
So, we've got showings from them. We've got numerous accolades all across the board. So, again, Janus, which do I trust? What the canon expressley says and take it as an indication of Palpatine's saber prowess as opposed to deficiency, or you clearly making your own interpretation and trying to claim it supersedes anything said on the subject?

There's nothing to show TPM Mace in any way, nor is there anything to substantiate that Qui-Gon is one of the best Jedi in fighting in the Order, especially since his skill is dwarfed repeatedly by other Jedi later in the Clone Wars. This statement by its own isn't sufficient. [/B]

That, and Qui-Gon's ability to face Maul for anything resembling an extended period of time when Maul had the Order's battlemaster outmatched in seconds of engagement says quite a bit.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Qui-Gon is noted by one of the Jedi saber masters to be the best he's seen in four hundred years. Mace was a member of the Jedi high council by that point and was a Vaapad master then. Unless there is any proof that in the interim ten years of peace on Mace's part that there was any substantial jump in his power, then the fact he and Qui-Gon were considered equals by virtue of neither being able to outduel the other does hold weight. You cannot suddenly decide canon statements hold no weight on their own because you feel they aren't substantiated.

That, and Qui-Gon's ability to face Maul for anything resembling an extended period of time when Maul had the Order's battlemaster outmatched in seconds of engagement says quite a bit.

I guess what I am trying to say is an obscure outdated quote does not hold power over the entire EU.

In 'numerous sources?' Where are these sources. Not only are you wrong on several issues:
1. Maul is one of the best duelists of the age.
2. Mace thirteen years later-we know he got better in the Clone Wars- is certainly better
3. A>B>C logic is SERIOUSLY flawed in duels.

So, no, fraid you're wrong here.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
In 'numerous sources?' Where are these sources. Not only are you wrong on several issues:
1. Maul is one of the best duelists of the age.
2. Mace thirteen years later-we know he got better in the Clone Wars- is certainly better
3. A>B>C logic is SERIOUSLY flawed in duels.

So, no, fraid you're wrong here.

You misread: We know Mace got better in the Clone Wars. IE: after three years of grueling warfare. That's different. Entirely.
As I said: A>B>C logic is not workable.

Dooku is Yoda's inferior but not to the level some would lead you to believe. not when it comes to strictly dueling anyway.
Maul however is not that close to Yoda and never will be. Dooku destroys him.

'Get it straight?' As usual you give Dooku far too much credit as a person. He is an egotist and a borderline sadist when it comes to combat who takes serious pleasure in breaking people down. He is just the type to stay and fight for the sake of his own ego and when the fight began, he believed himself capable of killing Yoda.

As usual, you're applying some kind of BS interpretation of a character you don't cherish for whatever reason and then attacking the weaker reconstruction that you've created. This is typical of you, and it's really kind of lame. If someone lauded George Washington as a general, you'd probably go off the deep end, talking in length about all his defeats, embellishing their details, and then ending on hating on his personal habits as if they have any bearing on the position of being a general.

How are you planning to further this assertion of yours? He admitted to Poggle earlier that the Republic had them surrounded, and he knows that Mace Windu, one of the foremost Jedi of the era, and more Clone Troopers than you can shake a stick at are coming. He also has to get away with the plans:

COUNT DOOKU: I'm going to Coruscant. My Master will not let
the Republic get away with this treachery.

POGGLE crosses to the holographic schematic and downloads
it into a cartridge. He gives it to COUNT DOOKU.

POGGLE: The Jedi must not find our designs for the ultimate
weapon. If they have any idea of what we are planning to
create, we are doomed.

COUNT DOOKU: I will take the designs with me. They will be
much safer with my Master.

It is true that Dooku thought he could quickly overcome Yoda, but when that turned out to not be true, he decided not to take any chances and left the battlefield. It's worth noting that the entire sword fight between Dooku and Yoda didn't even last a whole minute (Which is rather disappointing). The official script seems to indicate that Dooku was becoming weary of the fight with Yoda. Indeed, a lot of it isn't what's put in the final cut, so it's up for question, kind of like Dooku's "You promised me amnesty" piece from RotS:

COUNT DOOKU whirls his lightsaber in a formal salute. YODA
draws his lightsaber. Suddenly, COUNT DOOKU charges across
the space at YODA. He rains down blows upon the tiny
figure. YODA doesn't budge an inch. For the first part of
the contest, he parries every cut and thrust that COUNT
DOOKU aims. Nothing the great swordsman tries gets through.
His energy drains. His strokes become feeble, slower.

YODA attacks! He flies forward. COUNT DOOKU is forced to
retreat. Words are insufficient to describe the range and
skill of YODA's speed and swordplay. His lightsaber his a
humming blur of light. Finally, their blades cross and the
fighting slows.

This is blatantly contradicted by the actual movie in many ways:

1. Dooku doesn't charge across, he leaps.

2. Dooku isn't solely on the offensive at first. It's actually rather difficult to see clearly who is since they both rain blows at each other at such high speeds in close proximity. When the initial flurry stops, it's because Yoda has caught Dooku's blade in a saber lock, which he promptly shoves through, and then Dooku uses this opportunity to swing at him again. After this, you see Dooku work Yoda closer to the wall, where the smaller Jedi's agility would be slightly hampered. Then, for no apparent reason at all, Yoda does this three-point wall jump, just to go back to where he was before, and then spins like a top, swinging twice at Dooku, who then catches the blade in the fight's third saber lock in less than 45 seconds. Cue dramatic escape.

Again, that's the entire fight. There's no clear advantage of one over the other in terms of positioning, although Yoda was clearly much more agile and harder to hit, and his fighting style meant that no victory was assured for Dooku even under the most ideal of situations, much less when half of the Republic Army and Mace Windu was en route.

3. Words are insufficient to describe the range of ridiculousness that Yoda's fighting style displays. The three-point wall jump just shows how interested in technical fighting detail GL really is (Hint: not interested at all. That's why he hires experts for this).

4. Dooku's blows don't slow nor are they noticably feeble. I appreciate the dramatic implications that Yoda stomps all (Because he is the man), but it's just not reflected in the fight.

Hey, I learned from the best. You know, you should really stow it when it comes to be a 'respectful' debater' yourself.

No, you were always this way, even before you met me, LS. First thing you did when you came to SWVF is fly off the handle on someone who didn't share your opinion. The difference between you and me is that I've learned blowing up and being an ******* doesn't win any debates, nor many friends. I'd rather share intelligent ideas than verbally vomit my opinion all in someone's face just to validate my own beliefs.

Here's just for a start, though, courtesy of TFN:
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/2102/swep2aotc0428j.jpg

Awesome, a comic interpretation of the movie events which are the primary canon the entire series must adhere to. So when I debate about movie fights, everyone in KMC ultimately runs off and finds some non-movie material which supports their viewpoints instead of arguing to me rationally using source material. It's like arguing with a Creationist about the validity of evolution, and they run off and quote the Bible.

Let's go over this again:

"When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves—and only the films. Even novelizations are interpretations of the film, and while they are largely true to George Lucas' vision (he works quite closely with the novel authors), the method in which they are written does allow for some minor differences. The novelizations are written concurrently with the film's production, so variations in detail do creep in from time to time. Nonetheless, they should be regarded as very accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies.

"The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation. Not all artists draw Luke Skywalker the same way. Not all writers define the character in the same fashion. The particular attributes of individual media also come into play. A comic book interpretation of an event will likely have less dialogue or different pacing than a novel version. A video game has to take an interactive approach that favors gameplay. So too must card and roleplaying games ascribe certain characteristics to characters and events in order to make them playable.

"The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them. Like the great Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi said, 'many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.'"

So let's take the above information which is absolute and apply it to your proof.

1. What you've provided isn't from the movie, so it's subject to interpretation.

2. Even novelizations are subject to interpretation and differences; this extends to even official comic book versions of the movie events.

3. Since we cannot always know what GL sanctioned or didn't sanction in a piece of material that isn't the movie, we must ultimately defer to movie interpretations of characters and events for the full view of the "truth" according to SW gospel. EU is not higher than this truth, nor are novelizations or comic versions.

4. You didn't get anywhere with some random scan which doesn't reflect in the movie itself. You have yet to show me how you divined Dooku's motive for fleeing using the movie itself, which - get this - might actually involve some deductive reasoning on your part, not just aping some random quote or source which favors you.

I'm certainly challenging the conclusion you're drawing from it by noting, what others have pointed out: That Kenobi had temporarily gained a leg up tapping into his anger against an opponent far from fresh who almost immediately regained control.

No, you're just being obnoxious.

Neither Kenobi nor Maul were "fresh" since they had both fought that day. If you want to try and substantiate "How fresh" they were, I suggest you start arguing full-potential Anakin and TPM Mace for that matter. You cannot accurately determine their stamina in this situation, and really, who cares? Kenobi temporarily floored Maul with an outburst of anger. This is obvious in the movie. Maul had his saber busted and was kicked on his ass, literally. You can't dispute that unless you're some kind of move revisionist.

Now, Dooku versus Anakin, the situation is not the same. Whether you believe AotC Anakin to be equal to or superior to TPM Obi-Wan, it makes no difference. Dooku controlled the engagement and wasn't overcome as easily as Maul was. If you want to go "Oh, Maul's tired and his ankle hurts", well... then that's lame as hell. No pun intended. Seriously, I thought Jedi and Sith were supposed to get amazing energy reserves from the Force. Why are all these characters suddenly getting tired when we have to justify their losses? The only person who has shown exhaustion after or during a duel in SW so far is Yoda, and that was after less than 45 seconds of dueling Dooku. Whereas Anakin and Obi-Wan fight for what? Eight, ten minutes in various dangerous environments without anyone being shit out of energy. I doubt they were more martially inclined than Maul, who apparently ate five super assassins for breakfast before he went out to get the morning mail every day. And this is after Obi-Wan survives a near death experience and battles with Yoda into the Jedi temple, which Anakin himself had helped slaughter. Neither of them were fresh. Where is this selective exhaustion kicking in, pray tell?

I don't see this proving any real point other than "OMFG Maul >>>>> OBI LOLZ" which like I said, I wasn't disputing.

Sorry, Janus, canon is something above you, despite what you may believe.yeah, those three Jedi are held up as to be three of the Order's finest.

Three of the Order's Finest, and they couldn't defend themselves against Sidious' obviously telegraphed assault? So I take it the Jedi Order hires only handicapped children then, because even I could have ducked out of the way after a hard night of drinking. They just didn't react or defend themselves. Movie canon > all other canon. So I don't see how your position is logical nor adhering to canon. You can dispute it all you like, but they were all lame Jedi who couldn't handle a straight-forward onslaught. It's a wonder they didn't cut themselves with their lightsabers when they ignited them. Some random idea that they are "awesome" isn't verifiable by their only real showing, and that was to play red-shirt to Mace Windu's party crashing.

In fact? All three of them have actual panel showings to their names. Agen is seen almost effortlessly besting Quinlan Vos and specifically noted by Mace to be one of the best bladesbeings in the Order. Saesee is seen sparring with Mace and actually pressing him in the SW:Republic Infinity's Gate storyline. Kit? Kit took on and defeated General Grievous head on and his showings in Cestus Deception show why he's on the Council.

So they are awesome despite the movie because of EU showings? That's your argument? "Yes, they were retardly stupid and couldn't defend themselves from the most transparent attack since the Nazi invasion of France, but they were sekritly awesome warriors who nearly beat a bunch of other people in another scenario that required fighting." Boy, they must have been real exhausted because they couldn't defend themselves. Maybe they played table tennis for a good five minutes and sprained their ankles on their way into that fight. We should rationalize their failures with EU filler instead of accepting that they were inferior fighters and have no bearing on their killer's ability. Excepting Kit Fisto, a four year old could have easily run up and stuck them.

So, what's wrong in the end, Janus? The source specifically line reviewed by Lucas in the EU giving them accolades, substantiated by showings and further statements or you?
I'm curious as to where you get this 'unsubstantiated' nonsense now, or what it contradicts save your interpretation or opinion?

Good lord, more of this insanity.

1. Since when is this source "line reviewed" by Lucas? Substantiate this or stop claiming it.

2. The accolades are contradictory to their movie behaviors. Kit Fisto, I can rationalize that he was just unlucky and perhaps shocked at his comrade's death, and he was trying to fight in a small area. Agen and Saessee? Inexcusable. Even Star Trek redshirts last longer than that. If those are seasoned warriors, then I'd hate to see the Jedi amateurs.

3. You need to start drawing your own conclusions using reason instead of just finding stuff that benefits your argument and aping it. You have yet to actually substantiate something that isn't clearly printed off in EU/novelization for you. You can't accurately speculate or apply common sense where even EU/novelizations may contradict it. You hold the rabble-esque collective of a bunch of unaffiliated writers to a higher standard then the singular work which preceded them. That's pathetic.

I could give plenty other examples of how you're wrong in this instance in regards to substantiation or how it's just one random quote. In fact? The Complete Visual Dictionary cites them all as “a trio of celebrated swordmasters,” and Windu himself refer the assembled team as “four of the best [Masters].” The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia mentions that “Kolar was a tough combatant, and diplomacy was not his strong suit,” and that “Tiin was known for his foresight and ability to see the future,” and proclaims Fisto “a mighty warrior.
So, we've got showings from them. We've got numerous accolades all across the board. So, again, Janus, which do I trust? What the canon expressley says and take it as an indication of Palpatine's saber prowess as opposed to deficiency, or you clearly making your own interpretation and trying to claim it supersedes anything said on the subject?

Here we go again.

More EU fillibuster.

I'll be straight with you, LS. This is getting kind of tiresome. You need to substantiate. Here's a challenge for you - try adhering to the SW canon policy for once. I'll refresh for you:

1. Not all writers define the character in the same fashion.

2. When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves—and only the films.

3. LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation.

4. The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play.

This is a relatively straight-forward scenario. You're presenting non-movie sources which contradict what the movie shows us. Then you say "I'm right, you're mis-interpretating", completely ignoring the canon policy that Lucasarts already has in place for this very scenario. They make EU to milk the cash cow, LS. You aren't expecting across-the-board accuracy. It's not like LotR where only one person makes ALL the content in this case, they let all sorts of folks make stuff for the series. Is anyone here going to argue that the depiction of Anakin in Jedi Trial is more accurate than the depiction in-movie? No, of course not. That's contradictory. When there's a glaring contradiction, the movie wins. Period. You don't get to dispute that, it's clearly listed in the canon policy made specifically to resolve this kind of issue.

So yeah, there's your answer.

Qui-Gon is noted by one of the Jedi saber masters to be the best he's seen in four hundred years.

I don't remember seeing this in the movies. Can you substantiate how Qui-Gon is one of the best in 400 years? Or really, how important that is anyways? The Jedi haven't crossed sabers in anger in over a millenium.

Mace was a member of the Jedi high council by that point and was a Vaapad master then. Unless there is any proof that in the interim ten years of peace on Mace's part that there was any substantial jump in his power, then the fact he and Qui-Gon were considered equals by virtue of neither being able to outduel the other does hold weight. You cannot suddenly decide canon statements hold no weight on their own because you feel they aren't substantiated.

Yes, yes I can. EU canon <<<<< Movie canon. EU is someone's interpretation of GL's creation. They may want to express that Qui-Gon is friggin' awesome, but in the movie he makes some glaring dueling mistakes and he's very quickly outclassed by Maul when the Sith decides to go offensive for once. So unless you want to argue blindly that Maul could own Mace Windu or at least come close, I don't see this going anywhere. Vaapad wasn't even created when the TPM novelization came out, and a blanket statement holds no water in in EU land if it cannot see into the future. If we say that Anakin Skywalker is the best Force user ever, and then Galen Marek appears later on, doesn't this negate the earlier statement as inaccurate anyways?

So bottom line; the movies define the series accurately. Everything else is speculation and interpretation. If something is backed by the movies or GL's own tongue, then it holds water. If it doesn't, it's suspect and shouldn't be held as gospel since that's just irrational. You need to learn to make logical decisions for yourself based on information you're given, not just blindly accepting it because it's there and it benefits you.

That, and Qui-Gon's ability to face Maul for anything resembling an extended period of time when Maul had the Order's battlemaster outmatched in seconds of engagement says quite a bit.

Qui-Gon wasn't alone though, and when he was finally face-to-face with Maul and the Sith Lord immediately reversed his rush, within seconds Qui-Gon was overcome because he had no defense worth noting. So I don't see how a Jedi master who literally has no defense against Juyo (Which is supposively Maul's style and the base for Mace's own style) is going to be Mace's equal in combat. If this EU statement is held as true, and Mace had already invented and was implementing Vaapad at this point, then it stands to reason that Qui-Gon had no reason to lose, seeing as Mace has the refined version of Maul's own style and the two have apparently dueled before to a stand-still.

So do you see how the contradiction arises in that blanket statement you're providing?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
As usual, you're applying some kind of BS interpretation of a character you don't cherish for whatever reason and then attacking the weaker reconstruction that you've created. This is typical of you, and it's really kind of lame. If someone lauded George Washington as a general, you'd probably go off the deep end, talking in length about all his defeats, embellishing their details, and then ending on hating on his personal habits as if they have any bearing on the position of being a general.

4. You didn't get anywhere with some random scan which doesn't reflect in the movie itself. You have yet to show me how you divined Dooku's motive for fleeing using the movie itself, which - get this - might actually involve some deductive reasoning on your part, not just aping some random quote or source which favors you.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
[B]No, you're just being obnoxious.

Neither Kenobi nor Maul were "fresh" since they had both fought that day. If you want to try and substantiate "How fresh" they were, I suggest you start arguing full-potential Anakin and TPM Mace for that matter. You cannot accurately determine their stamina in this situation, and really, who cares? Kenobi temporarily floored Maul with an outburst of anger. This is obvious in the movie. Maul had his saber busted and was kicked on his ass, literally. You can't dispute that unless you're some kind of move revisionist.

Now, Dooku versus Anakin, the situation is not the same. Whether you believe AotC Anakin to be equal to or superior to TPM Obi-Wan, it makes no difference. Dooku controlled the engagement and wasn't overcome as easily as Maul was. If you want to go "Oh, Maul's tired and his ankle hurts", well... then that's lame as hell.

No pun intended. Seriously, I thought Jedi and Sith were supposed to get amazing energy reserves from the Force. Why are all these characters suddenly getting tired when we have to justify their losses?

The only person who has shown exhaustion after or during a duel in SW so far is Yoda, and that was after less than 45 seconds of dueling Dooku. Whereas Anakin and Obi-Wan fight for what? Eight, ten minutes in various dangerous environments without anyone being shit out of energy. I doubt they were more martially inclined than Maul, who apparently ate five super assassins for breakfast before he went out to get the morning mail every day. And this is after Obi-Wan survives a near death experience and battles with Yoda into the Jedi temple, which Anakin himself had helped slaughter. Neither of them were fresh. Where is this selective exhaustion kicking in, pray tell?

Three of the Order's Finest, and they couldn't defend themselves against Sidious' obviously telegraphed assault? So I take it the Jedi Order hires only handicapped children then, because even I could have ducked out of the way after a hard night of drinking. They just didn't react or defend themselves. Movie canon > all other canon. So I don't see how your position is logical nor adhering to canon. You can dispute it all you like, but they were all lame Jedi who couldn't handle a straight-forward onslaught. It's a wonder they didn't cut themselves with their lightsabers when they ignited them. Some random idea that they are "awesome" isn't verifiable by their only real showing, and that was to play red-shirt to Mace Windu's party crashing.

So they are awesome despite the movie because of EU showings? That's your argument? "Yes, they were retardly stupid and couldn't defend themselves from the most transparent attack since the Nazi invasion of France, but they were sekritly awesome warriors who nearly beat a bunch of other people in another scenario that required fighting." Boy, they must have been real exhausted because they couldn't defend themselves. Maybe they played table tennis for a good five minutes and sprained their ankles on their way into that fight. We should rationalize their failures with EU filler instead of accepting that they were inferior fighters and have no bearing on their killer's ability. Excepting Kit Fisto, a four year old could have easily run up and stuck them.

Good lord, more of this insanity.

1. Since when is this source "line reviewed" by Lucas? Substantiate this or stop claiming it.

Matthew Stover: His input did more than affect the characterizations. His input was the foundation of the characterizations. All I was trying to do was find literary language that would bring his characterizations to life in a book.[/Bold]

Somehow, I doubt Mr. Stover is lying.

2. The accolades are contradictory to their movie behaviors. Kit Fisto, I can rationalize that he was just unlucky and perhaps shocked at his comrade's death, and he was trying to fight in a small area. Agen and Saessee? Inexcusable. Even Star Trek redshirts last longer than that. If those are seasoned warriors, then I'd hate to see the Jedi amateurs.

3. You need to start drawing your own conclusions using reason instead of just finding stuff that benefits your argument and aping it. You have yet to actually substantiate something that isn't clearly printed off in EU/novelization for you. You can't accurately speculate or apply common sense where even EU/novelizations may contradict it. You hold the rabble-esque collective of a bunch of unaffiliated writers to a higher standard then the singular work which preceded them. That's pathetic.

Here we go again.

More EU fillibuster.

I'll be straight with you, LS. This is getting kind of tiresome. You need to substantiate. Here's a challenge for you - try adhering to the SW canon policy for once. I'll refresh for you:

1. Not all writers define the character in the same fashion.

2. When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves—and only the films.

3. LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation.

4. The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play.

This is a relatively straight-forward scenario. You're presenting non-movie sources which contradict what the movie shows us.

Then you say "I'm right, you're mis-interpretating", completely ignoring the canon policy that Lucasarts already has in place for this very scenario. They make EU to milk the cash cow, LS. You aren't expecting across-the-board accuracy. It's not like LotR where only one person makes ALL the content in this case, they let all sorts of folks make stuff for the series. Is anyone here going to argue that the depiction of Anakin in Jedi Trial is more accurate than the depiction in-movie? No, of course not. That's contradictory. When there's a glaring contradiction, the movie wins. Period. You don't get to dispute that, it's clearly listed in the canon policy made specifically to resolve this kind of issue.

I don't remember seeing this in the movies. Can you substantiate how Qui-Gon is one of the best in 400 years? Or really, how important that is anyways? The Jedi haven't crossed sabers in anger in over a millenium.

Yes, yes I can. EU canon <<<<< Movie canon. EU is someone's interpretation of GL's creation. They may want to express that Qui-Gon is friggin' awesome, but in the movie he makes some glaring dueling mistakes and he's very quickly outclassed by Maul when the Sith decides to go offensive for once. So unless you want to argue blindly that Maul could own Mace Windu or at least come close, I don't see this going anywhere. Vaapad wasn't even created when the TPM novelization came out, and a blanket statement holds no water in in EU land if it cannot see into the future. If we say that Anakin Skywalker is the best Force user ever, and then Galen Marek appears later on, doesn't this negate the earlier statement as inaccurate anyways? [/B]

It's also funny how the movies never once indicate or say Qui-Gon is a bad fighter...in fact, all indicates Maul is also an incredible, nearly unparalleled one himself. Why is this? Could it be official word is that they're both really, really good and Maul is just better is right off? And everyone makes 'glaring dueling mistakes' in the movies. SW swordfighting does not correspond well to real life sword fighting.

And since nothing ever said Anakin was the best ever or Galen Marek was even better, irrelevant misdirection.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
So bottom line; the movies define the series accurately. Everything else is speculation and interpretation. If something is backed by the movies or GL's own tongue, then it holds water. If it doesn't, it's suspect and shouldn't be held as gospel since that's just irrational. You need to learn to make logical decisions for yourself based on information you're given, not just blindly accepting it because it's there and it benefits you.

So do you see how the contradiction arises in that blanket statement you're providing?

Keep it civil, folks. I will say that, by KMC standards, if the novels do not contradict the films then they hold precidence. Subject to interpretation or not, whatever they state can be used in the EU forum.

I realize that we've been through this again and again, and we're likely destined to enter the ring on the same subject for the next thousand years, but this cherrypicking is ridiculous.

Janus, I'm really not understanding what your goal is. It seems like you are selecting parts of canon that support your argument and then ignoring the rest. That's not how it works; taking the fact that Mace's companions didn't perform admirably against Palpatine is a sign of their obvious inferiority is rather... stupid, don't you think? The Making of Revenge of the Sith makes it clear that, to Lucas, you have to be "Mace or Yoda to compete with the Emperor." That's ironclad and incontrovertible. You don't get to use their lackluster performance and obscene choreography as a sign that they are anything less than what they are reputed to be in the rest of canon. Does the fact that I couldn't compete with Michael Jackson during the prime of his life mean that I can't play basketball well? Or at all? No, not necessarily. And it's stupid beyond words to contend as such.

You flat out told Advent to disregard novelizations and the narrative within. You're not authorized to do that; they have their place within the canon hierarchy, much to your obvious chagrin.

No offense, but your argument assumes that you and you alone are the arbiter of what is right and wrong within the confines of the saga and that is simply not the case.

Jesus Christ. By Michael Jackson... I meant Michael Jordan. *sigh*

Let's just cut to the point, LS. At least my novels are saying something, you're just nitpicking. I've asked you repeatedly to show me the reasoning behind your assertions, and the most you can come up with is personal attacks on me, or blindly reposting C-canon sources to dispute my thoughts on G-canon material. So basically, you've taken a piece of Star Wars material that is "foggier" than the original, and are using that to combat me instead of... using G-canon material and working from there.

So if I see a fight, and it appears A is winning, and B is not, your answer is to find a source from someone other than the creator of the fight and use it to explain away your perspective of the fight's intricacies? Do you not see the failing in that at all?

I'm not saying"C-canon is invalid all the time, everywhere." I'm simply stating the obvious - that in a situation where G-canon shows something and C-canon explains it away differently, we should rely on the movies themselves to accurately depict the truth. If a comic book or a novel says "Dooku was losing his ass", and the movie events depict the fight to not show any clear loser, why would I advocate the stance of the comic book or novel? Why should I rely first on a piece of material that is not supported by the movies? If the novel says that Dooku was on opium and stool softeners and he could not focus on the Anakin fight and thus he lost, would this be considered a legit "excuse" for the movie events? Is this somehow more valid than an objective look at the original content itself? Apparently you haven't played the telephone game before.

Yes, we know. Choreography is bad, how is this relevant?

Choreography is relevant. These are the original depictions of the fights were debate over. If you suddenly dismiss their validity simply because of "bad choreography", you'd have to dismiss any in-movie events as well, since they all rely on the failures and short-comings of being a movie. I could argue that Obi-Wan and Anakin were fighting "faster than the eye could see all the time, without pause" simply because GL didn't shoot the movie that way, or I could argue that "Space bunnies bit Padme and gave her a space virus which explains why Luke Skywalker mastered all his Jedi skills in the time it takes to fly to Alderaan" simply because GL's budget couldn't manage that one. Dismissing a valid and important part of the movie as mere choreography is ridiculous. If you aren't going to debate about the content of the fight, why are you even bothering to debate about interpretations of it? How lame is that? Why don't you just write a story about someone's book report of Dante's Inferno then?

How would we be able to tell this? Again: Because you yoruself do not believe it is reflected does not mean it is so. The page I posted earlier reveals Dooku's thoughts on the subject.

Watch the fight in the movie this time. Show me where in the movie Dooku was moving slowly, attacking feebly, etc. Don't point me to a book. I'm arguing with the source material here, which is more valid than anything which comes after it. You can't do that, can you?

Don't even try to take the high ground here, Janus. The 'difference here?' Let's ask Gideon, or Faunus, or Advent or Red Nemesis or plenty people here how I am in general debates. If I've run out of patience with you long since, there is a reason. You want respect? Fine. But every time you come back, you sure act as condescending as possible in debates.

No, I actually haven't acted condescending since I came back. Ask tdtd. He even brought up how I had debated with him over a very touchy subject without being rude. I've been pretty laid back with everyone else too, including Advent who blatantly told me to "go watch the movies again", like I'd never seen them. But hey, whatever. Then you come in the thread and the first words out of your mouth is basically I don't know how to use reason. That's combative right there. I wasn't addressing you at all, so the behavior is uncalled for this time. If you're so fed up of my viewpoints that you can't talk to me civilly, stop talking to me. I'm not here to bash people anymore. No one enjoyed it, and it didn't help any. Least you could do is respect that.

See, this is a reason your arguments can be treated with contempt. You decidedly ignore ANYTHING that contradicts your views, canon or not. Official script disagrees with what you think you see It's invalid. Novelization disagrees? Invalid. Comic adaptation disagrees? It's invalid.
How about you accept that when people are arguing, they are going to actually use official materials to support their arguments and all those things disagree with you, perhaps it's time to reconsider your position.

But you're missing the point - I've redefined my argument based on what Lucasarts feels is properly canon. I'm actually ignoring large swaths of EU that may or may not support my argument. I'm not even using points from Dark Rendezvous even though they do help boost Dooku a bit. The movies themselves are ultimate canon. The most recent version of the movie is the one which most closely depicts what GL feels should be there. This is his work. I used to fight that for a long time and champion EU, but I realize that it's not the right mentality. A lot of conflict comes from shoddy EU continuity. Some windows are foggier than others, obviously.

For the script? I found problems with it because it glosses over the battle and there may have been last-minute changes. This is not unheard of; the RotS script had last minute changes which involved Dooku basically throwing the fight. If GL knows Yoda > Dooku by a fair margin, the script seems to infer that and it's proper. The movie doesn't clearly show any advantage by the time Dooku disengages, but the fact that Dooku knows the whole Republic army is after him is apparent even earlier in the script. He tells Poggle that they are "surrounded".

However, what I'm pointing out is that you're not making any observations by looking at the movies themselves. When I say "The fight looked in A's favor over B" or something similar, I'm making an observation by looking at the movie. Then you counter with "This book based on the events we're discussing but not written by the original creator says this". Well, great. You've shown me an observation made by someone else who may or may not have actually considered the battle the same way I do. This proves nothing. You have to substantiate by applying reason. You cannot claim to know something if you yourself cannot think up the logical processes behind it.

If I say that Maul was hard-pressed by Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon and could not quickly overwhelm them until the environment was in his favor, you cannot counter that with "Well, Book X says otherwise", unless you're going to logically break that down for me somehow, while inferring to the actual source material in question.