Originally posted by Slash_KMC
I'd still say that Qui-Gon did a worse job than Obi-Wan or Anakin did. Qui-Gon wouldn't have last as long as the latter without being rescued, he was near death after a 15 seconds duel. This while Dooku actually looked out of breath after his curbstomping.
Wow, Slash that is some Interpretation of the fight.
Right after he Force pushed Anakin around 4:42.
And Qui-Gon did get his ass kicked, Maul just didn't have the time to finish the job. But I'm not going to get into this "yes, no, YES, NO" dance, I neither have the time nor the patience to deal with this at the moment.
Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Next time, say something useful like how and where you disagree with my interpretation or just stay quiet.
Aren't we Irritated today.
The first meeting Qui Gon was caught off guard and taken by surprise seeing that there weren't suppose to be any Sith anymore. The fact that Maul could touch or disarm him under those circumstances proves that there was no stomping by Maul.
Then we have the second meeting in which Qui Gon was able to keep pushing Maul back until they were stop by the power generator. He never waited for Obi Wan or tried to re-group with him.
Originally posted by Slash_KMC
YouTube videoRight after he Force pushed Anakin around 4:42.
And Qui-Gon did get his ass kicked, Maul just didn't have the time to finish the job. But I'm not going to get into this "yes, no, YES, NO" dance, I neither have the time nor the patience to deal with this at the moment.
This is a retarded assumption. Don't make excuses for Maul. We are arguing the FIGHT, not what MIGHT have happened had it continued. During the fight, all Maul did was push him back. It's a simple concept, I don't know why you can't understand it.
Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Next time, say something useful like how and where you disagree with my interpretation or just stay quiet.
👆👆👆👆👆👆
The first meeting Qui Gon was caught off guard and taken by surprise seeing that there weren't suppose to be any Sith anymore. The fact that Maul could touch or disarm him under those circumstances proves that there was no stomping by Maul.
"Anakin, drop!"
He was clearly taken off guard. 😐
The fact that Qui-Gon was out of breath after twenty seconds worth of fighting speaks volumes.
You're in denial.
Then we have the second meeting in which Qui Gon was able to keep pushing Maul back until they were stop by the power generator. He never waited for Obi Wan or tried to re-group with him.
You are wrong.
2 bad
no one is saying that Maul wasn't better in TPM, we are discussing the word curbstomp Red. Did Maul CURBSTOMP them in TMP. MY opinion of curbstomp is a fight in which the weaker opponent(s) never have a chance. I.e. 3 Masters against Sidious.
Since there are 2 points in the fight. (posted earlier btw) where maul could have died, without first kicking QGJ, and the second time if he had been a split second slower, AND this fight lasted 5 minutes, Maul lost his lightsaber, this wasn't a curbstomp.
What is your interpretation of the word?
EDIT: actually... Beefy might be saying QGJ and TPM kenobi were better, so i take it back if it was him you were speaking to.
But I doubt it.
Just watched that clip above. It looked more like QGJ was just running away, avoiding a fight. Not so much that he got pushed back that quickly. He was running towards the ship, Maul leaps over him to block his escape, and he leaps up into the ship.
Someone with the novel, can you post those few moments of fighting action? If the novel says that QGJ was getting it handed to him, that is one thing, but since he was clearly running away and not trying to engage Maul, these few seconds are hardly a great indication of who had better ability.
My main argument though, rests with the second fight, and the sheer length of time it took, second longest fight in the mythos, with a cut-away scene that took, we have no idea how long.
I believe the fight on naboo is from QGJ's perspective right up until the end before the end where it switches to Kenobi's, am i wrong?
If i remember that much correctly, it does at one point say that QGJ took the fight to Maul, trying to end it quickly. Not that this matters, because Maul WAS better.
The second fight on naboo, simply was not a curbstomp. I'm yet to see that addressed here. People say Maul >>>>>>> than QGJ and Kenobi together, are focusing only on this first snippet in which QGJ is clearly trying to simply run away. The second fight is about the furthest thing from a curbstomp that you are going to get.
Originally posted by truejedi
By semantics do you mean what happened in the fight, that is very important.
By “semantics” I mean the absolute nonsense about what “curb stomp” means. For example, your retort here is nothing more than semantics because I explained what happened in the fight and what the context of the words I mean meant, as seen here:
Originally posted by Advent
Qui-Gon "just barely escaping with his life" when Maul was using one end of his blade isn't getting his ass kicked? I'd say it certainly is. You're making bogus arguments out of semantics.
Originally posted by Advent
Qui-Gon Jinn scoring one blow doesn't mean he wasn't beaten like a redheaded stepchild (which is what I said, not "curb stomped"😉. If you recall, during their final portion of the duel, Qui-Gon is killed within 30 seconds. That is kicking ass no matter what way you look at it and evidence that Qui-Gon is a joke in comparison to Maul. I should point out that Maul had previously injured himself on Tatooine in a battle against Tusken raiders, which would have hindered his performance, too.
That is a very strong quote and kudos for using it, but I wasn't claiming that Maul wasn't stronger.
Irrelevant misdirection - I wasn’t countering that in my rebuttal. I was supporting the obvious fact that Maul was dominating the fight.
He showed that he was, But being the stronger(more powerful, better, w/e adjective have you) in a duel doesn't guarantee success unless you are so much stronger than the opponents that you cannot be touched. It takes a split second for a lesser opponent to kill a stronger opponent. Maul had those moments where he could have died (you call it scemantics?) that means he didn't curbstomp. Since this is a hand-to-hand fight, I beg to differ that there were several moments in the duel when he could have died, and THAT removes the word curbstomp. A curbstomp is a 10 second, 20 second fight. Sidious curbstomps 3 jedi masters before fighting windu. This wasn't a curbstomp. It was a fight in which maul was better.
^ See above; zOMG, your examples of ‘curb stomp’ don’t fit the literal act of “placing someone’s head on a curb and stomping it with your foot”! I can play that game, too. Red herrings will be dismissed for the irrelevancy that they are.
These moments of possible death come at 1:30, and at 3:51 if maul is a split second slower. It also lasted 5 minutes. It hardly fit the definition of curbstomp.
Can you please show me where the word “curb stomp” is defined in Webster’s or any respectable dictionary? Oh? What’s that? You can’t, because it isn’t. Your personal interpretation doesn’t trump mine, especially when I’ve stated precisely what I meant by it. That is why any arguments over the semantics are simply stupid and a poor excuse at addressing the actual point.
And really, you say ‘moments of possible death’? Hardly, considering Maul didn’t die and regained the upper hand by countering the attempts to capitalize on those ‘moments’.
This kinda actually stands as a contradiction to your first two quotes above. Saying they should have won the battle long ago doesn't really do anything to make this sound like a curbstomp. I'm not saying Maul didn't have the advantage remember.
“They should have won this battle long ago. Against any other opponent, they would have.” - Red elaborated on this more than adequately.
As evidenced by the 2 video references above, and the unpredictability of melee combat, it was. Maul coming off the floor a split second later would have had him killed by Kenobi, while laying on the ground , without the kick, QGJ would have taken him out.This duel wasn't as one-sided as you are trying to say.
Yes, it was. It is obvious from the duel and from the novel that they were never going to beat him without divine intervention (which ended up occurring).
Right, we agree about Bondara then. Being the best duelist means not nearly as much when you realize how important the force is in a duel between force weilders. Not to short-change Bondara, but it doesn't mean that Maul beat the best the order had to offer.
What the hell does that even mean? That's vague; elaborate. Are you suggesting that Anoon Bondara was weak in the Force? Combined with his lightsaber skills, he’s “one of the best fighters in the Order”. Beating Anoon Bondara does mean that Maul beat the best saber duelist the Order had to offer. His combat prowess was “unmatched” so clearly his ability to amplify his attributes with the Force is considerable.
To counter that: I would give you the quote from ROTS novelization where Mace says to kenobi:"In fact, Obi-Wan, I believe that of all living Jedi, you have the best chance to defeat him. Pg. 294"
Does this mean Obi-wan is the most dangerous of living jedi? hardly. Does this mean that Maul beating him is a greater feat than beating Yoda ? no.
That doesn’t make a lick of sense. Anakin wasn’t the most powerful or skilled Force user. Obi-Wan was best suited according to Mace Windu because Anakin was his apprentice and he taught Anakin everything he knew, but not necessarily everything that Obi-Wan knew. Your A > B feat wars logic at the end is horribly skewed.
You seem to be under the impression that I was claiming Maul beat Anoon, therefore he’s better than Obi-Wan. I wasn’t. I was countering the logic that Obi-Wan should be better than Maul because he’s beaten Grievous and Anakin (which you called “more impressive). You continually brought up how Anakin beat Dooku but completely ignore how Anakin owned Dooku in a direct fashion. Obi-Wan didn’t do that against Anakin. If Grievous were in the Jedi Order, he clearly wouldn’t have been the best with a blade.
So you are saying in a land WITHOUT an environment that Anakin would kill Kenobi? That is kinda pointless isn't it, as every fight has an environment. It is kinda painting with a broad brush to say that location was absolutely everything to this fight, when they spent an inordinate amount of time fighting at arms length. Yes, Kenobi got the high-ground, and Anakin tried to leap over him at the end of the fight, but the only case where it would be possible for this to occur would be in a setting with absolutely no ledges or changes in terrain.
Strawman argument, logical fallacy.
Originally posted by Advent
It's bullshit to say that on a location other than Mustafar, Obi-Wan's victory on Mustafar means nothing? I hope you realize what's wrong with that statement. If Kenobi doesn't have the same environment to manipulate, then claiming that he could best Anakin on any other grounds is nugatory. So, his victory was extremely situational.
Key phrase: 'If Kenobi doesn't have the same environment to manipulate'. Key word: 'same'. Reading comprehension is important.
My point, in all of this, is that Kenobi CHOSE to use that ground.
What were his other options then? Are you suggesting that Kenobi could have stopped Anakin head-on? He didn't have much of any choice, the only choice he had was to either give ground or take Anakin on directly. The latter choice likely resulting in Kenobi being beheaded.
second: I have a problem with the 2/5 minute thing.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSwy412nttI
at the 1:34 mark, it cuts away from the fight scene between anakin and obi-wan. We have no idea how long that cut away is for. Any details from the novel that are absent from the screen, easily fit into that abscence, and are still canon.
You aren't George Lucas, therefore you don't dictate canon. This is begging the question. If it isn't shown in the movie, we have no idea what happens in the movie; the highest form of canon.
novel: "Obi-Wan reached. ANakin's lightsaber twisted in the air and flipped into his hand. He poised both blades in a cross before him. "the flaw of power is arrogance."
"You hesitate," Anakin said. "The flaw of compassion--"
"It's not compassion, Obi-Wan said sadly. "It's reverence for life. Even yours. It's respect for the man you were."
He sighed. " It's regret for the man you were."This scene actually fits very well into the cut-away from the 1:34 mark of ROTS. Remember, no contradiction makes novel still canon.
Just because there isn't a contradiction doesn't mean it's canon. That's utterly fallacious reasoning. If we aren't shown what happened, we have no idea what Lucas intended. Your argument collapses because of such.
Well, yes... I agree with that. I said the reason Kenobi giving ground was a result of his hesitance to kill Anakin. It was also his way. That is supported by the novel. Given the opportunity, he was still willing to land the killing blow. That is obvious by the end of the duel.Pg. 397 "In every exchange, Obi-Wan gave ground. It was his way. And he knew that to strike Anakin down would burn his own heart to ash."
"In every exchange, Obi-Wan gave ground. It was his way" - this doesn't mean that Obi-Wan wasn't being pushed back. It clearly isn't his way of fighting since he's shown to attack Grievous head-on and even chase him down. Against Dooku in the duel on the Invisible Hand, Obi-Wan is pressing the offensive.
"To strike Anakin down would burn his own heart to ash" - in no way whatsoever does this support anything you're saying. It only means that killing Anakin would cause him emotional turmoil, that doesn't mean he isn't willing to kill him. Clearly, he is since he tries to when the chance arises.
Originally posted by truejedi
2:45-2:55 actually, as I said above, BUT.... this also does not include the time from the cut-away, that had to be long enough to include the material from the novel that is not in the movie.Anyway, its a novel quote that Kenobi hesitated earlier in the duel, both he and anakin acknowledge it. So there was definitly hesitation there. I rest my case there.
Begging the question, logical fallacy.
The evidence you're using to support that is not shown in the movie. Anakin didn't acknowledge a damned thing and Obi-Wan didn't show an ounce of compassion. When he had the chance to kill Anakin, he tried to capitalize on it. That is shown in the movie and trumps your assumptions.
2:45-2:55, after the majority of the melee fighting is nearing completion actually.
If we go by the novel, Obi-Wan 'lets go of everything' after he's put into a choke hold. The choke hold occurs one minute into the fight. Ergo, Obi-Wan didn't hold any attachment to Anakin one minute into the fight. There's still no indication that Obi-Wan was holding back especially when we consider that the first opportunity he had to kill Anakin, he tried to.
This is interesting. If you want to use this quote, from pg. 397, you will have to acknowledge the circumstance I quoted earlier with Kenobi hesitating with the chance to kill anakin. They are both from the same place, Pg,397-398, and they both include details that didn't happen on screen. (Kenobi opening Anakin's hand and getting both sabers, and Anakin and Kenobi sending blaster bolts back and forth at each other, respectively.)
The difference between that and the quote I've provided is that the quote tells us what Obi-Wan was thinking about his opponent, not doing. His hesitation was never there because we're shown on-screen that he doesn't hesitate in attempting to strike Anakin down. There's a stark contrast, and asserting that if I use this quote, I must accept all quotes (that aren't shown or supported) is downright illogical.
I don't think it indicates he couldn't stop him outright at all. I think it indicates that it was Kenobi's way to give ground, and the burn to ash quote i've given several times. Feel free to expound on the fact that Kenobi couldn't stop Anakin, just slow him down, but I don't think it is convincing enough at the moment.
I hope you realize Kenobi giving ground and "striking Anakin down would burn his heart to ash" are both compatible with what I've been saying. Giving ground doesn't mean that he wasn't being pushed back. His feelings about striking Anakin down don't mean that he wasn't going to. Indeed, it only means that if he killed Anakin, it would hurt him emotionally, which is obvious.
Personally, I don't care if you're not convinced. I don't expect you to be. Interpreting what happened in the movie is just that: interpretation. You have yours and I have mine.
He dictated where the fight went from the beginning giving ground means leading.
X is being forcefully pushed back to an area that Y wants (say the edge of a cliff).
X is giving ground.
Therefore, X is controlling where the fight goes since he's giving ground.
The conclusion is not true just because X is giving ground. Therefore, 'giving ground' does not automatically translate into leading. Your evidence doesn't justify your conclusion.
This does seem contradicted by the movie, in which kenobi retreats through the door of that room, so i withdraw that one.
Glad to hear it.
(2:10 in the clip above)However, we are given this, which indicates Obi-Wan chose to go outside.
"Mustafar hummed with death behind his back, only a moment away, somewhere out there among the rivers of molten rock. Obi-Wan let Anakin drive him toward it. It was a place, he decided, they should reach together."
Pg. 401
Letting him drive him back doesn't mean he wasn't being forced. I'm not sure how many times I need to stress the point. Letting himself be driven back doesn't mean that he could have stopped Anakin's onslaught head-on. Which would have to be true for your assumption to hold any water.
As did your quote about Kenobi using anything he could to slow Anakin down, since in the movie, there is no part of the fight where they parry blaster bolts back and forth at each other. However, It all fits nicely into the cut-away we see at the 1:34 mark of the duel.
I hope you understand that my quote doesn't need to be shown in the movie. Though part of the phrase contradicts the movie (following my logic that if it isn’t demonstrated, it isn’t valid), that doesn't make that certain aspect invalid. Exactly the same concept as despite the fact parts of the novel contradict the movie, the entire novel is not invalid. It's not an action and we're not shown otherwise (Kenobi's hesitation is not supported at all from what we do see).
[quote]truejedi
second: I have a problem with the 2/5 minute thing.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSwy412nttI
at the 1:34 mark, it cuts away from the fight scene between anakin and obi-wan. We have no idea how long that cut away is for. Any details from the novel that are absent from the screen, easily fit into that abscence, and are still canon.
Advent
You aren't George Lucas, therefore you don't dictate canon. This is begging the question. If it isn't shown in the movie, we have no idea what happens in the movie; the highest form of canon.
truejedi
novel: "Obi-Wan reached. ANakin's lightsaber twisted in the air and flipped into his hand. He poised both blades in a cross before him. "the flaw of power is arrogance."
"You hesitate," Anakin said. "The flaw of compassion--"
"It's not compassion, Obi-Wan said sadly. "It's reverence for life. Even yours. It's respect for the man you were."
He sighed. " It's regret for the man you were."This scene actually fits very well into the cut-away from the 1:34 mark of ROTS. Remember, no contradiction makes novel still canon.
Advent[/quote]I'm confused. How is the canonicity of something in question if it's explicitly stated in a G-Canon novel and not contradicted in the movie?
Just because there isn't a contradiction doesn't mean it's canon. That's utterly fallacious reasoning. If we aren't shown what happened, we have no idea what Lucas intended. Your argument collapses because of such.
Advent, I'm just throwing this out there: You do realize that, according to Stover, Lucas went through the novel line by line, edited it quite a bit and cut stuff out? You realize that if Lucas is performing a line edit and a 'between the scenes scene' is left in, it's a safe bet to say that's fitting not only nicely in with canon but Lucas's intention.
Originally posted by Eminence
I'm confused. How is the canonicity of something in question if it's explicitly stated in a G-Canon novel and not contradicted in the movie?
If it isn't shown in the movie, we have no idea what Lucas' intentions were. The novel even has parts of fights that directly contradict what is shown on screen. For example, during the Jedi duo vs. Dooku event:
"Anakin launched himself at Dooku's back-and the Count half turned, gesturing casually while holding Obi-Wan at bay with an elegant one-handed bind. Chairs leapt up from the situation table and whirled toward Anakin's head. He slashed the first one in half contemptuously, but the second caught him across the knees and the third battered his shoulder and knocked him down.
He snarled to himself and reached through the Force to pick up some chairs of his own-and the situation table itself slammed into him and drove him back to crush him against the wall. His lightsaber came loose from his slackening fingers and clattered across the tabletop to drop to the floor on the far side."
Therefore, just because the novel says that it happened, doesn't mean that George Lucas would agree with it. The fact that there isn't a contradiction does not necessarily make it true then.
What you don't seem to understand is that no contradiction does not equal true. The novel is often flat-out wrong about how scenes in the movie are shown to happen. There's absolutely no reason to think that they would necessarily be right about scenes that aren't shown then. This is the case with almost every movie novel. The TPM novelization, for example, had tons of inconsistencies in the Maul vs. Jedi duo fight.
Originally posted by Lightsnake
I'm sorry, the novel is at LEAST C-canon if non contradictory and why are you completely ignoring Lucas line edited the thing scene by scene?
He edited the novel scene-by-scene but made inaccuracies to the very scenes he directed? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense.
AdventA passage which is, as you said, contradicted entirely by what we see on-screen. This is not the case for the quote truejedi provided; the two aren't comparable.
The novel even has parts of fights that directly contradict what is shown on screen. For example, during the Jedi duo vs. Dooku event:"He threw himself spinning up and away from the two Jedi to land on the situation table, disengaging for a moment to recover his composure-that had been entirely too close-but by the time his boots touched down Kenobi was there to meet him, blade weaving through a defensive velocity so bewilderingly fast that Dooku dared not even try a strike; he threw a feint toward Kenobi's face, then dropped and spun in a reverse ankle-sweep-But not only did Kenobi easily overleap this attack, Dooku nearly lost his own foot to a slash from Skywalker who had again come out of nowhere and now carved through the table so that it collapsed under Dooku's weight and dumped the Sith Lord un-eremoniously to the floor. This was not in the plan. Skywalker slammed his following strike down so hard that the shock of deflecting it buckled Dooku's elbows. Dooku threw himself into a backroll that brought him to his feet-and Kenobi's blade was there to meet his neck. Only a desperate whirling slash-block, coupled with a wheel kick that caught Kenobi on the thigh, bought him enough time to leap away again, and when he touched down-Skywalker was already there."
AdventAlthough I'm not sure the argument would have any merit either way, Stover has conveniently addressed this:
If it isn't shown in the movie, we have no idea what Lucas' intentions were.[...]
Therefore, just because the novel says that it happened, doesn't mean that George Lucas would agree with it. The fact that there isn't a contradiction does not necessarily make it true then.
Stover LinkThat seems fairly conclusive.
Though I did not personally watch him do it, I received from LFL a Word document of Revenge of the Sith with Mr Lucas' edits, which was distinct from the edits I'd already gotten from Sue Rostoni and Howard Roffman and the rest of the LFL crew, and this document was edited in such a detailed fashion that even individual words had been struck off and his preferred replacements inserted, as well as some passages wholly excised and some dialogue replaced with the dialogue from the screenplay. If that's not line-editing, I don't know what is.What's in that book is there because Mr. Lucas wanted it to be there. What's not in that book is not there because Mr. Lucas wanted it gone.
Period.
Let me make the point clearly.
The passage I've provided is contradicted by the movie.
Therefore, the novel can be inaccurate when describing fights.
The quotes truejedi has provided are not shown on-screen.
Therefore, we can't assume that because it's written in the novel it's true. If the novel can be inaccurate when describing fights on-screen, why should we automatically trust descriptions that aren't on-screen?
The passage I've provided was just to make the larger argument hold water; it wasn't a comparison.
That said, I don't really give a damn what Stover says.
Originally posted by Advent
What you don't seem to understand is that no contradiction does not equal true. The novel is often flat-out wrong about how scenes in the movie are shown to happen. There's absolutely no reason to think that they would necessarily be right about scenes that aren't shown then. This is the case with almost every movie novel. The TPM novelization, for example, had tons of inconsistencies in the Maul vs. Jedi duo fight.
You are mentioning INCONSISTENCIES, which is a different kettle of fish from non-contradictory scenes
He edited the novel scene-by-scene but made inaccuracies to the very scenes he directed? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by Advent
Let me make the point clearly.The passage I've provided is contradicted by the movie.
Therefore, the novel can be inaccurate when describing fights.
The quotes truejedi has provided are not shown on screen.
Therefore, we can't assume that because it's written in the novel it's true. If the novel can be inaccurate when describing fights on-screen, why should we automatically trust descriptions that aren't on-screen?
The passage I've provided was just to point out the larger point; it wasn't a comparison.
That said, I don't really give a damn what Stover says.