FOTJ Luke Skywalker vs DE Darth Sidious

GL tells Gillard what happens and Gillard makes it work on the big screen.

http://www.starwars.com/episode-i/bts/profile/f19991117/index.html
Defining Jedi swordplay isn't part of the creative process? Dang, I guess every Star Wars film was a one-man show.

Mind your sarcasm; the link doesn't work.

Originally posted by Elok Quintly
You really grasp at straws when it comes to the non-validity of canon sources, don't you Borbarad? Out-of-universe context has nothing to do with canonicity.

Lmfao.

Firstly OOU context has nothing to do with canonicity? You realize that the highest form of SW canon is George Lucas himself who can technically rewrite SW canon as he wants by saying the right words. That's as OOU as it gets. Obviously your little premise is wrong.

Secondly I don't see how a work that is clearly written from an OOU perspective such as the DE Sourcebook should not be influenced by OOU context. If Sidious did know all techniques (maybe five of them) in 1994, it doesn't mean he knows 500 almost 2 decades later. That's bullshit.

Thirdly I don't have to grasp straws, given that you were omitting the first half of the quote, which reads "It is believed..." (that SIdious knew all powers and could device new ones), rendering this line of thought speculative at best, given that we don't have any idea who belived that. I can belief that Marka Ragnos can play tennis with star systems. Wow. Does that turn this notion into a fact?

There goes your argument, jabroni. Beat it.

I'm sure you've read that Nick Gillard quote right? Oh wait, I'm sure you'll come up with some ridiculous reason why that isn't valid.

Oww. The same Nick Gillard that denied the existance of Vaapad. He's certainly the best source to site when it comes to SW canon. Lmfao.

It is also clear that debating with you is a fruitless endeavor, given that you are most assuredly a rather cantankerous individual. You seem to ignore previous debates in the past that already invalidated the argument that Freedon Nadd can successfully conjure Force storms of his own power, gloss over any canon source you find disagreeable, and use logic that just so happens to be anything but congruous with official canon policy.

My dear Newbie.
Unlike you, I participated in most of the important debates that happened at this place, so you might want to know your role and shut your mouth instead of attempting to call me out on "ignoring stuff".

The fact of the matter is, that you wanted to take a quote literally, ignoring the context (and even half of the damn quote itself) to proof your point. I merely did the same with the Nadd quote. This isn't a game of "pick what you like and ignore the rest". Either you take everything literal, without questioning a single word appearing in a SW source, or you have to take the rough road of using the cells that god placed between your ears.

If you decide to do the latter, you can question every saying as you want but then you have to grant that right to all other people here as well. If you don't want to do that, then debating with me is a fruitless endeavor as I will simply kick your sorry ass back and forth across this place. I've done it to countless noobs before and one more or less doesn't really matter. Your choice. But don't expect me to waste time with you like I did with Gideon (who finally did succumb to my teachings). 😮 🙄

Just thought of that: EEK. So does the screenplay, STRAIGHT FROM LUCAS overrule the movies?!?!?!

Cause Lucas IS the pinnacle of cannonicity. He overrules everything, even the films. Does his screenplay overrule what we see onscreen?

TJ
Just thought of that: EEK. So does the screenplay, STRAIGHT FROM LUCAS overrule the movies?!?!?!

Cause Lucas IS the pinnacle of cannonicity. He overrules everything, even the films. Does his screenplay overrule what we see onscreen?

I'm 90% certain that this isn't the case.

George has ultimate authority over all of the movies (and, in many cases, over the EU itself [though that doesn't mean he always exercizes it]). Scripts are accurate to his original intent; what we see in the film is the final result.

In the case of Revenge of the Sith, Lucas not only had direct control over both the film and the script, but also the novelization by Matthew Stover.

That's true. I would definitly prefer it that way, but it also occurred to me that we allow sequences from the novelization if there are gaps in the fighting that allow them to occur.

Wouldn't this screenplay work the same way? The above happened, though not shown on camera, because there are gaps in Yoda and Sidious's fight that would allow that to occur? Yoda holds sidious's life in his hands, hops away, THEN the camera comes back with Sidious throwing pods?

Originally posted by Gideon
Thanks, HeWhoKnowsNothing. Where would we be without your astute ability to point out the obvious?

Spoiler:
EQ asked for the quote; I provided it. If you don't like the argument, take it up with him.

I wasn't necessarily referring to you. I was simply saying that the quote that I'm referring to doesn't really mean much, as numerous other duelists have been similarly praised, many of whom aren't nearly as powerful as Sidious.

TJ
That's true. I would definitly prefer it that way, but it also occurred to me that we allow sequences from the novelization if there are gaps in the fighting that allow them to occur.

Wouldn't this screenplay work the same way? The above happened, though not shown on camera, because there are gaps in Yoda and Sidious's fight that would allow that to occur? Yoda holds sidious's life in his hands, hops away, THEN the camera comes back with Sidious throwing pods?

The difficulty with the screenplay is that it shows Yoda about to kill Palpatine and then, for no reason, leaps away: this is tantamount to stupidity.

If, for example, the screenplay mentioned Palpatine start to regain his footing or preparing a sneak attack, that'd be one thing. But Yoda simply vows to kill the Emperor and jumps away for no reason.

You can understand how this would contradict the whole "Destroy the Sith, we must" line, yes?

Not to mention how some of it also contradicts what we see in the film itself, such as Yoda crashing into the Chancellor's podium (which is also in the novelization).

Originally posted by Gideon
Mind your sarcasm; the link doesn't work.

Firstly OOU context has nothing to do with canonicity? You realize that the highest form of SW canon is George Lucas himself who can technically rewrite SW canon as he wants by saying the right words. That's as OOU as it gets. Obviously your little premise is wrong.

Secondly I don't see how a work that is clearly written from an OOU perspective such as the DE Sourcebook should not be influenced by OOU context. If Sidious did know all techniques (maybe five of them) in 1994, it doesn't mean he knows 500 almost 2 decades later. That's bullshit.

Thirdly I don't have to grasp straws, given that you were omitting the first half of the quote, which reads "It is believed..." (that SIdious knew all powers and could device new ones), rendering this line of thought speculative at best, given that we don't have any idea who belived that. I can belief that Marka Ragnos can play tennis with star systems. Wow. Does that turn this notion into a fact?

Oww. The same Nick Gillard that denied the existance[sic] of Vaapad. He's certainly the best source to site[sic] when it comes to SW canon. Lmfao.

Interesting arguments.

As far as canon is concerned though, unless there is a distinct contradiction between one source and another, no case for a retcon can be made.

Originally posted by Elok Quintly
OOU context barring the word of Lucas and official LFL proclamations. If a canon source written in 1995 states that Stormtrooper armor is made from plastoid, and no source from that point onward directly contradicts it, then Stormtrooper armor is made from plastoid. End of story. It doesn't matter if the author was intoxicated at the time he wrote it, all that matters is that it was published and officially licensed by LFL.

And this is were you are wrong.

Every single source that adds new force powers to that which were known in 1995 does affect the statement. Because the "all powers known" back in 1995 are not the same "all powers known" we have in 2010. That is so damn obvious, that I think my IQ just dropped by 5 points because I had to type down this explanation.

First of all, that's not a halve. Second, despite the reputed speculative nature of this passage, the omniscient narrative would render said speculation a rung higher than any accolades in-universe characters have provided for Luke's saber skills, which is something you have cited.

Good god. I won't go on and explain the concept of "omniscience" in literature to you, mainly because there isn't any truely omniscient narrator present in one single SW source and you won't understand it at all. Fact.

Next thing is that, if some narrator says "it was assumed" then usually you would site that as a reference to the general public in a fashion of a "people said" statement. Given that the general public didn't even know that Palpatine was a Sith, this seems to be very speculative. No matter from what type of narrator it was coming - it's far away from being a fact.

And lastly: Accolades to Luke's saber skills (and I don't recall of having used any of those - I'm merely stating what he has done with his lightsaber) are usually given by people who practiced the art of lightsaber combat themselves. So one could say that they can give more accurate judgements on Luke's lightsaber ability that a not even sited source can about Sidious force knowledge.

If you can ignore secondary canon sources, I guess he's permitted the same luxury. Either way, as far as I can recall, Gillard merely mentioned that he didn't consider the seven forms when working on the films. Mind providing the quote where he outright claims that Vaapad "doesn't exist"?

He typed it down in a chatroom.
And secondary canon sources? Is somebody unfamiliar with certain terms? Apparently I have to explain them to you too. A "secondary" source is something that comments on events happening in an original source. Vaapad appears in the primary source material, even though it was originaly spawned outside of it.

That aside: Did you just destroy the credibility of your own source by saying that the same man who claimed Sidious mastered all forms of lightsaber combat didn't even give a crap about said forms. Yup. That makes perfect sense. 🙄

So third-person omniscient isn't used in any Star Wars source? That's quite a claim. Second, you really shouldn't be lecturing me on literary terms when you yourself consistently misspell simple words such as "cite". 😆

And the narrative contained within the Dark Empire Sourcebook refers only to in-universe characters and events. Aside from game statistics, there are no references to external factors. If you believe it is LFL's policy to interpret these older sources in the manner you are proposing, I challenge you to provide concrete evidence of this. If you don't, I'll look into it myself.

That aside: Did you just destroy the credibility of your own source by saying that the same man who claimed Sidious mastered all forms of lightsaber combat didn't even give a crap about said forms. Yup. That makes perfect sense. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Originally posted by Elok Quintly
Second, you really shouldn't be lecturing me on literary terms when you yourself consistently misspell simple words such as "cite". 😆

1. This is nitpicking.

2. English is his second language.

Originally posted by Elok Quintly
So third-person omniscient isn't used in any Star Wars source? That's quite a claim. Second, you really shouldn't be lecturing me on literary terms when you yourself consistently misspell simple words such as "cite". 😆

Given that I'm German and it's 2 a.m. over here, such things can happen. That aside, I happened to study literature and the mechanics are the same in German and English. So you may want to listen if I give you lessons in that field.

And the narrative contained within the Dark Empire Sourcebook refers only to in-universe characters and events. Aside from game statistics, there are no references to external factors. If you believe it is LFL's policy to interpret these older sources in the manner you are proposing, I challenge you to provide concrete evidence of this. If you don't, I'll look into it myself.

You are dodging the point.
Sourcebooks, as the name implies, do elaborate on sources and can only deal with source present. Logically, they can't refer to anything that wasn't there when they were written. Certainly the DE Sourcebook does only refer to events in the SW universe, but that doesn't change the fact that the meaning of the lines inside it did change with new source material popping up. There is a difference in mastering 5 techniques (in fact we pretty much just had mind-control, force lightning and TK back then) and mastering dozens of different (part exoctic and sometimes even completely lost) force powers.

If Thrawn back in 1992 was the "biggest threat the Republic has ever seen" according to some sourcebook, that certainly isn't the case any longer after the rebirth of Sidious, correct?

Merely because he didn't take the seven forms into consideration when making the film, doesn't render his statement any less germane--although it is a blanket statement rather than being specific, I'll grant you that.

Gosh.
If he doesn't care about the forms, then he can't make educated statements about who used them. I'm rather sure that Sidious did master multiple forms, given that he (probably) used form VII (like Maul) which does require mastery of multiple forms. But I don't see any purpose for him to master the likes of Soresu (entirely defensive, not matching his style or philosophy) for example.

Originally posted by Borbarad
Because the "all powers known" back in 1995 are not the same "all powers known" we have in 2010.

The point you're apparently missing being that if the source was referring to "all powers known" from the inside perspective of the story, then what may/may not have been known from the outside perspective of the story has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the statement, unless it has had some kind of impact on the story in a manner that now invalidates it.

At best you could argue that what we now know about the Force isn't in line with what may have been the original intent behind the statement, but from the perspective of the story the statement remains valid unless it faces conflicting evidence from within the story.

Originally posted by Won Fei Fon
The point you're apparently missing being that if the source was referring to "all powers known" from the inside perspective of the story, then what may/may not have been known from the outside perspective of the story has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the statement, unless it has had some kind of impact on the story in a manner that now invalidates it.

At best you could argue that what we now know about the Force isn't in line with what may have been the original intent behind the statement, but from the perspective of the story the statement remains valid unless it faces conflicting evidence from within the story.

The point that you're apparently missing being that the source doesn't refere to anything from the "inside perspective" of the story. The Sourcebooks have been written to transport the storyline into the world of the Star Wars Roleplaying Game. So they are written for people playing the game by people who designed the game.

So do you really think that this statements refers to "all known powers" in the storyline, or does it merely point to "all known powers" in the context of the RPG? I'd suggest the latter. Which doesn't matter much, because anything not belonging to the storyline being present in a sourcebook is regarded as N-Canon. And I don't see the list of Sidious force abilities playing a part in the storyline.

So is the statement just (intentionally) vague, outdated or totally not canon? Who cares? In any case, it can't be used as proof for a certain point.

"It is believed that he has mastered nearly all the known powers, previously unknown powers, and devises new ones at his pleasure".

I'd say it's quite clearly coming from the inside perspective of the story; are we to assume that Sidious breaks the fourth wall at his leisure and designs new techniques from outside of the story for LFL to use in their sourcebooks?

the current argument aside, the "it is believed" part of that statement really renders the entire statement fallible anyway...

So do you really think that this statements refers to "all known powers" in the storyline, or does it merely point to "all known powers" in the context of the RPG? I'd suggest the latter. Which doesn't matter much, because anything not belonging to the storyline being present in a sourcebook is regarded as N-Canon. And I don't see the list of Sidious force abilities playing a part in the storyline.

And yes, it is referring to all known powers within the storyline. The statement wouldn't have made mention of his ability to create powers at his leisure if it only described powers mentioned in the text; in fact, the passage would have been far more specific in that case.

The point that you're apparently missing being that the source doesn't refere to anything from the "inside perspective" of the story.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
the current argument aside, the "it is believed" part of that statement really renders the entire statement fallible anyway...

That's true. It cannot be from an omniscient source if the source isn't even sure. Its the same thing that shot me in the face on a Kas'sim argument once when someone pointed out that saying Kas'sim was "perhaps" the greatest swordsman ever meant it couldn't possibly be from an omnscient source.