Well, until Advent responds, I guess I don't need to stick around. I'm here to note observations, not make judgments.
And this is what I see:
Originally posted by Advent
Ugh, this was bothering me (not in a personal way, pop).Actually, canon doesn't put anyone "on top", it's all in this forum's mentality. I remember when someone from this forum asked Leland Chee on the official site message boards who was more powerful: Ragnos or Sidious (in hopes to end a raging debate that used to go on here). His answer was that there are no "established power charts" and that there is no canon list of "who's better than who", stating -at any point- one character could become more powerful than another if an author chose.
So, really, it is "we", and by "we", I mean, you. And by "you", I mean some members of this forum. Did I do that right?
Originally posted by Advent
So simply, the authors are making their interpretation of the character, meaning statements like "the most powerful ever" are totally fair game to be questioned. Think about it. I don't have a problem with people being called the best of the era in EU, that makes more sense than a definitive "ever", past, present and future.
Originally posted by Advent
And most importantly, I don't agree with you because you're spouting off hyperbole and ambiguous quotes to support your disagreement.
Originally posted by Advent
Nice job knowing that the narrator of the NEC is Voren Na'al, a fictional character. The book is written from his perspective (meaning in-character fallibility), and seeing that some young historian from the NJO era wouldn't be capable of measuring the power of the Sith Lords of old, he's either delusion, exaggerating or considering political influence, wealth, and knowledge when using the word "powerful".
I see Advent make a systematic attempt to invalidate or question the legitimacy of EU materials, tossing out "hyperbole" and "ambiguity" to particular statements.
And yet I see this:
Originally posted by Advent
Other than the plethora of lines in EU materials like novels, comic books, magazines and so on? Many sources note Anakin as being the Chosen One and being capable of becoming the most powerful other than Lucas. Most importantly, the characters in the movies themselves admit this openly.
When it suits her, the EU materials "like novels, comics, magazines and so on?" become ironclad and unquestionable. There are many words that can be used to describe this... inconsistency.
I'll just use the word "questionable."
I have nothing against Advent, but I'm waiting for this newfound faction of skeptics to make up their damn mind.
Edit: Oh, and an alternate interpretation could be that Mr. Chee's quote applies simply to the victor of the fight. That characters can still be established as more powerful, stronger, or smarter, but that there is no chart as to who will emerge victorious in a fight.
That makes much more sense.
But, what do I know?
Firstly, not everything is a debate about Sidious. My problem stems from the fact that hyperbolic and ambiguous quotes are used as a substitute for actual substance in proving what makes character X better than Y. I have no problem accepting Sidious as the "most powerful" Sith Lord, by what we know about him, he pretty much is (not in every aspect, but overall). Ignoring all those "most powerful" quotes, there is still mountains of evidence. However, we're ultimately calling him the most powerful. As Leland Chee said, it's possible for another character in the mythos to surpass any other (specifically, he did mention Sidious).
Anyways, let's look at what you originally said:
Mr. Chee had best take it up with his employer, because if Mr. Chee is to be taken at his word, then there is no established power hierarchy anywhere. Which applies to the movies. Which must mean that Maul certainly isn't better than Qui-Gon, Dooku certainly isn't better than Obi-Wan, Obi-Wan certainly isn't better than General Grievous, Sidious certainly isn't better than Kit Fisto, Yoda certainly isn't better than Sidious, and Anakin really doesn't have a midichlorian count exceeding Yoda's.
Then,
Where has Anakin's potential been proven in the movies? And any enemy can be defeated given certain circumstance. Who's to say that, under other conditions, Grievous wouldn't have handed Kenobi his ass?Maybe he was getting stressed due to the appearance of clones.
It's cute how you mention it being "late" (as if that somehow hinders my capabilities being a night owl and all) as a possible reason I'm not making sense. The lack of sense I see here can be contributed to complete and utter vagueness. Explain what you mean by "certainly isn't better". The second part of what you've said supports the idea that there, in fact, aren't any "power charts on who can beat who" since it's possible for Grievous to beat Obi-Wan under certain circumstances.
As for Anakin's potential in the movies, if you recall, Qui-Gon takes a midichlorian sample from Anakin when he is on Tatooine and has Obi-Wan test it using scientific devices, which conclusively proved Anakin's midichlorian count would be greater than Yoda's.
Originally posted by Gideon
I see Advent make a systematic attempt to invalidate or question the legitimacy of EU materials, tossing out "hyperbole" and "ambiguity" to particular statements.And yet I see this:
When it suits her, the EU materials "like novels, comics, magazines and so on?" become ironclad and unquestionable. There are many words that can be used to describe this... inconsistency.
I'll just use the word "questionable."
Before you decide to type something: THINK. I edited my post long before you ever entered the fray, so clearly, I revoked that.
If your post about it was unintentional, that's a mistake on your part. If it was intentional, you need to stop trolling.
Originally posted by Gideon
Edit: Oh, and an alternate interpretation could be that Mr. Chee's quote applies simply to the victor of the fight. That characters can still be established as more powerful, stronger, or smarter, but that there is no chart as to who will emerge victorious in a fight.That makes much more sense.
But, what do I know?
That's my position...
For instance, when people use Sidious quotes of "being the most powerful" alone as evidence that he would beat any Sith Lord before him. You do make sense to me, but only because it's what I believe, too.
Originally posted by Advent
Firstly, not everything is a debate about Sidious.
It was the example that led you to enter this thread and thus start this horribly complicated discussion.
My problem stems from the fact that hyperbolic and ambiguous quotes are used as a substitute for actual substance in proving what makes character X better than Y.
How so?
I have no problem accepting Sidious as the "most powerful" Sith Lord, by what we know about him, he pretty much is (not in every aspect, but overall).
You seem to have been resisting most powerfully thus far. It's rather like squirming in a straightjacket, I'd imagine.
Ignoring all those "most powerful" quotes, there is still mountains of evidence.
Still with you.
However, we're ultimately calling him the most powerful.
Originally posted by Advent
Ignoring all those "most powerful" quotes
No, we aren't.
As Leland Chee said, it's possible for another character in the mythos to surpass any other (specifically, he did mention Sidious).
It was never in question that there couldn't be a character, somewhere down the line, to surpass Palpatine.
It's cute how you mention it being "late" (as if that somehow hinders my capabilities being a night owl and all) as a possible reason I'm not making sense. The lack of sense I see here can be contributed to complete and utter vagueness. Explain what you mean by "certainly isn't better". The second part of what you've said supports the idea that there, in fact, aren't any "power charts" since it's possible for Grievous to beat Obi-Wan under certain circumstances.
Explain how an alteration in circumstances would somehow support your idea that there aren't any power charts. Grievous could certainly take a comatose Kenobi, but does that make him better?
No. That's the problem: you assume that "most powerful" = "who always wins the fight!"
As for Anakin's potential in the movies, if you recall, Qui-Gon takes a midichlorian sample from Anakin when he is on Tatooine and has Obi-Wan test it using scientific devices, which conclusively proved Anakin's midichlorian count would be greater than Yoda's.
Because a fallible third party said so? Was Kenobi guessing? Was he adding the numbers up in his head? Was he looking at a list? Was there a glitch in said list?
And how does having a higher count than Yoda mean that Anakin has the highest count in history which is, if I recall, what you were defending?
Originally posted by Advent
Before you decide to type something: THINK.
Originally posted by Advent
I edited my post long before you ever entered the fray, so clearly, I revoked that.
Huh?
Before we carry on, I have to note the irony and humor in this situation. You berate me, telling me to think.
And then your next words mention a situation where you apparently forgot to do so yourself, thus forcing you to "revoke" a poorly worded conclusion.
If your post about it was unintentional, that's a mistake on your part. If it was intentional, you need to stop trolling.
My post was intentional. I saw that Wolverine had it quoted and I didn't bother to look as to whether or not you had edited it out.
Originally posted by Advent
That's my position...
Eh?
...
WTF.
Wait a minute, wait a minute. Where the hell did this come from? I didn't see anywhere that you were contesting "who'd win in a fight," but rather "who was the most powerful."
One's up for discussion, the other isn't.
For instance, when people use Sidious quotes of "being the most powerful" alone as evidence that he would beat any Sith Lord before him. You do make sense to me, but only because it's what I believe, too.
There must be some miscommunication here. Advent, I referenced the time because it's late for me, meaning I might not understand what you're saying. But you aren't making sense. You're questioning who is the most powerful, not who would win in a fight.
There must be some miscommunication here. Advent, I referenced the time because it's late for me, meaning I might not understand what you're saying. But you aren't making sense. You're questioning who is the most powerful, not who would win in a fight.
Please, don't tell me what I'm questioning. You clearly just didn't grasp the argument and jumped at the chance to defend Sidious' position, even though it wasn't being attacked.
im not talking about sideous. i never was. im a firm believer in his dominance. but not because there is some quotes saying that he is.
^ This is what we're talking about. The crux of it. Sidious merely sparked the discussion. We're discussing a general view of the versus forum as a whole - the forum's "mentality". If you noticed, the response I got to my original post was three quotes calling him the most powerful, which is the kind of shit I'm talking about.
My post was intentional. I saw that Wolverine had it quoted and I didn't bother to look as to whether or not you had edited it out.
Thanks for admitting your mistake.
It was never in question that there couldn't be a character, somewhere down the line, to surpass Palpatine.
The term "ever" means past, present and future. The phrases "the most powerful in history" means past and present. So, where is the room for a Sith Lord character to become more powerful than Sidious if he's the most powerful ever to exist?
Anyways, I have no idea what the argument is going to be about now. But about this whole "power charts" issue, I'm not sure what there is to discuss. Ushgarak weighed in a long time ago and brought the gavel down:
Final word- it's all interpretation, which is ultimately all opinion. There is no universal unambiguous soruce of relative power levels, nor is such a thing desirable as it would be a very petty creation.
Originally posted by Advent
Please, don't tell me what I'm questioning.
You're absolutely right; I can't tell you what you're questioning, since you seem to be leaping to stance after stance after stance.
"no sidious is not the most powerful leland chee said that there are no power charts"
"Anakin's potential is the highest because [the non-existent power charts] said so!"
Would it be too much trouble for you to make up your mind?
You clearly just didn't grasp the argument and jumped at the chance to defend Sidious' position, even though it wasn't being attacked.
Wasn't it being attacked? You were the one who said that there weren't any power charts and that it was open to question and interpretation.
^ This is what we're talking about. The crux of it. Sidious merely sparked the discussion. We're discussing a general view of the versus forum as a whole - the forum's "mentality". If you noticed, the response I got to my original post was three quotes calling him the most powerful, which is the kind of shit I'm talking about.
What's your point? All we have are quotes regarding Anakin's potential. Guess they mean nothing.
Thanks for admitting your mistake.
No problem.
I will keep it in mind to double check everything you say, in the future, just in case you realize it was something silly and feel the need to edit it out.
^ That was sarcasm. I'm not obligated to keep hitting the refresh button to see whether or not you decide to drop a point. Concede it or don't.
The term "ever" means past, present and future. The phrases "the most powerful in history" means past and present. So, where is the room for a Sith Lord character to become more powerful than Sidious if he's the most powerful ever to exist?
I never said Sith. I said character.
Originally posted by Advent
Anyways, I have no idea what the argument is going to be about now. But about this whole "power charts" issue, I'm not sure what there is to discuss. Ushgarak weighed in a long time ago and brought the gavel down:
How did you know that Lucas posts under Ushgarak? I guess if you read, very closely, you'll note that Ushgarak is an anagram for George Lucas.
Oh, wait.
It doesn't matter, though. This startling revelation means that everything can be questioned: everything from Anakin's potential to just how badass Coleman Trebor actually was if he hadn't been so unfairly taken advantage of by Jango Fett.
It's probably why Fett was so quick to kill Trebor; he knew that, if given the chance to fight properly, Trebor would probably hand Dooku his old ass.
Originally posted by Gideon
You're absolutely right; I can't tell you what you're questioning, since you seem to be leaping to stance after stance after stance."no sidious is not the most powerful leland chee said that there are no power charts"
"Anakin's potential is the highest because [the non-existent power charts] said so!"
Would it be too much trouble for you to make up your mind?
There's your problem: a complete lack of understanding of the arguments at hand. My position was never that Sidious isn't the most powerful because "Leland Chee said so". It's that quotes about Sidious being the most powerful aren't solid evidence that he is the most powerful. See here:
Originally posted by Advent
Chris Cerasi, who is an editor for LucasBooks, doesn't agree with you:"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.
And,
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 simply, the authors are making their interpretation of the character, meaning statements like "the most powerful ever" are totally fair game to be questioned. Think about it. I don't have a problem with people being called the best of the era in EU, that makes more sense than a definitive "ever", past, present and future.
Leland Chee doesn't agree with you:
Ushgarak, the law of the forum, doesn't agree with you either (link):
Final word- it's all interpretation, which is ultimately all opinion. There is no universal unambiguous soruce of relative power levels, nor is such a thing desirable as it would be a very petty creation.
And most importantly, I don't agree with you because you're spouting off hyperbole and ambiguous quotes to support your disagreement. Who's the most powerful man in America? You could argue the president, but that doesn't make him capable of tearing down buildings with his bare hands. Even one of your own quotes support the idea that "powerful" can be taken in the sense of political influence, wealth, or knowledge.
Wasn't it being attacked? You were the one who said that there weren't any power charts and that it was open to question and interpretation.
If you tossed those quotes out the window, that has an effect of exactly squat on his position.
Did I say he wasn't the most powerful with the Force? Did I call someone else the most powerful with the Force? No? Then just stop while you're behind, because you'll hit China by morning if you keep digging yourself any deeper.
No problem.I will keep it in mind to double check everything you say, in the future, just in case you realize it was something silly and feel the need to edit it out.
^ That was sarcasm. I'm not obligated to keep hitting the refresh button to see whether or not you decide to drop a point. Concede it or don't.
You can't concede a point you never made. However, you can concede that you made an obvious mistake in trying to call me out on things that I didn't subscribe to. And, as it appears, you did since you admitted as much.
I never said Sith. I said character.
Let me make that point you responded to a bit more clear as it pertains to the discussion:
As Leland Chee said, it's possible for another [Sith Lord] character in the mythos to surpass Sidious).
We're skipping to summations. You're a tricky minx, trying to get me to devote more time to a place from which I am attemping to escape, but no moar.
Originally posted by Advent
Leland Chee decided that there was no "power charts" on who can beat who.
Originally posted by Advent
His answer was that there are no "established power charts" and that there is no canon list of "who's better than who", stating -at any point- one character could become more powerful than another if an author chose.So, really, it is "we", and by "we", I mean, you. And by "you", I mean some members of this forum.
I took issue with this because such "power charts" exist within the movies themselves, since we see ample demonstrations of "who can beat who," regularly.
Meaning that Mr. Chee has screwed the pooch, and is contradicted by both the movies and his boss, who as (at least once) mentioned that Vader cannot defeat the Emperor.
Originally posted by Advent
The characters in the movies themselves admit that Anakin is the Chosen One and the capable of becoming the most powerful openly.
No.
There is a vague reference to Anakin's potential exceeding Yoda's, and Sidious's equally vague reference that Vader "will become more powerful than [Yoda or himself]."
Since Sidious and Yoda cannot be established as the most powerful, simply being stronger than them doesn't mean he would be the most powerful in history. Or even of the time.
Originally posted by Advent
You're taking the quote out of context by far. Everything you described has been tested and proven in the movies.
If Mr. Chee is to be taken at his word, then LFL (which includes the movies) has no power chart. Meaning no one is more powerful than the other in the movies.
It's all fiction. If you want to interpret sidious as Impotent or omnipotent, that's your choice, but for the purpose of this forum and these debates, ush has not only said this:
A thread dedicated to this is ridiculous.This was, in fact written for the sole purpose of basically telling Gideon "shut up, you made your point." And it was in reference to "Power charts", and people saying they couldn't debate because there were not power charts. Out of context it says that all material is interpretation and thus if you interpret 'A New Hope' to be a prequel to 'Howard The Duck', it's just as much cannon as george lucas telling the world that "Sidious is the most powerful". You can't void parts of the story you don't like with your own interpretation and then bring it into a forum and expect to win debates. Its star wars, not the infallible word of god.Final word- it's all interpretation, which is ultimately all opinion. There is no universal unambiguous soruce of relative power levels, nor is such a thing desirable as it would be a very petty creation.
Sheesh
On a side note, Ush also said this:
3. Anything George Lucas says about the Star Wars universe is incontestable. We kinda take that as a point of common sense.
Since george lucas officially stated that Sidious is the most powerful sith, sidious is the most powerful sith. This is not to be twisted by your interpretation.
There's nothing more to argue. This debate is off-topic to both my original point and to the thread itself. My initial argument was that quotes of being "the most powerful X" are a poor substitute for actual evidence when you consider it's "all interpretation". This is supported by Chris Cerasi, editor for LucasBooks, Leland Chee, a Lucasfilms official monitor of continuity and Ushgarak, who decides the rules around here. The "hyperbole/ambiguity" question is a completely valid point, as well, and appears true in -at least- two cases (tNEC and Vader: Ultimate Guide).
Case closed.
Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Since george lucas officially stated that Sidious is the most powerful sith, sidious is the most powerful sith. This is not to be twisted by your interpretation.
George Lucas never officially stated anything about that, as far as I'm aware. If he did, please show me such and I'll go away forever. I honestly doubt that he ever did say this because I'm sure Lightsnake would be tossing it out right and left (love you, sweety!).
Also, first triple post ever, but you all really need to head over to Caedus vs. Yoda and input some more thought. It'd be much appreciated and, of course, heavily vetted.
Originally posted by Advent
George Lucas never officially stated anything about that, as far as I'm aware. If he did, please show me such and I'll go away forever. I honestly doubt that he ever did say this because I'm sure Lightsnake would be tossing it out right and left (love you, sweety!).
Yes he did, in his rots commentary. And its been common knowledge, what planet have you been on since 2005?
Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Yes he did, in his rots commentary. And its been common knowledge, what planet have you been on since 2005?
George Lucas stating Sidious is the most powerful Sith Lord ever is "common knowledge"? That's news to this entire forum then. No one has ever brought it up. It certainly would've made things easier for Lightsnake in...2005 and 2006.
What does he say then, exactly, word-for-word?