Khan Noonien Singh vs. Palpatine

Originally posted by quanchi112
Peter Jackson read them and changed what he wanted. When arguing the films it's films only.

He changed only little bits we saw onscreen, he never changed the history and lore of the world he worked on.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The events have been changed here and there. It isn't an exact copy so again they are different.

And yet they are still strictly based on the events given form and context described in the books and events that occurred offscreen. Tell me, who is Morgoth in film only story?

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
He changed only little bits we saw onscreen, he never changed the history and lore of the world he worked on.

And yet they are still strictly based on the events given form and context described in the books and events that occurred offscreen. Tell me, who is Morgoth in film only story?

Morgoth is Sauron's master aka Melkor. We know he's a servant to him but we don't know his film power levels or anything.

The events of Abrams Trek is canon.

Palpatine sh1ts on him.

Originally posted by Stigma
Palpatine sh1ts on him.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It didn't make any sense and as I said retcon a happen all the time in comics.

The difference is this isn't a comic. Comic reboots happen often enough, but you can't toss out base source material without completely rewriting it

Originally posted by quanchi112
Morgoth is Sauron's master aka Melkor. We know he's a servant to him but we don't know his film power levels or anything.

And yet, Melkor is explained in the Simarilion. If you don't have stuff on screen, then what is the problem with using the wider canon context?

Originally posted by quanchi112
The events of Abrams Trek is canon.

Not if it clashes with prior canon without explanation. That's how and why canon is used.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You seem very biased and unable to support any of your wild and nonsensical claims.

Or he just refuses to debate with you since he knows it will get him no where.

Originally posted by EmperorSidious2
Or he just refuses to debate with you since he knows it will get him no where.

And I agree, Sidious stomps this fool.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
The difference is this isn't a comic. Comic reboots happen often enough, but you can't toss out base source material without completely rewriting it

And yet, Melkor is explained in the Simarilion. If you don't have stuff on screen, then what is the problem with using the wider canon context?

Not if it clashes with prior canon without explanation. That's how and why canon is used.

All we know is he's a servant of Melkor. The books aren't canon. Just the films.

It's called a retcon. Quit picking and choosing. Ignoring Khan abilities and movie facts is biased behavior.

Originally posted by EmperorSidious2
Or he just refuses to debate with you since he knows it will get him no where.

Originally posted by Stigma
👆

And I agree, Sidious stomps this fool.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, you can. The director and movie people dictate what's canon not you.

Actually, the franchise owners do. Otherwise things like comics, movies tv series and entire franchises would be far more of a jumblef@ck than they are now. That's why things like canon exist. You've already demonstrated numerous times that you don't know either the old Legends Star Wars canon, nor the new Disney Star Wars canon policies, so don't try to play that game with me.

Originally posted by quanchi112
All we know is he's a servant of Melkor. The books aren't canon. Just the films.

Oh how wrong you are of that. Your telling me that the movies didn't follow the books lore? And that the movies are now higher in the canon scale than the original work? WTF?!

Originally posted by quanchi112
It's called a retcon. Quit picking and choosing. Ignoring Khan abilities and movie facts is biased behavior.

You invented abilities like the 100% perfect accuracy and Khan himself having regen despite never showing it. Do not blame me if I follow the actual ST canon, and use it to serve as an explanation as to why NuKhan is inconsistent and doesn't show the power set you claimed he did.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Actually, the franchise owners do. Otherwise things like comics, movies tv series and entire franchises would be far more of a jumblef@ck than they are now. That's why things like canon exist. You've already demonstrated numerous times that you don't know either the old Legends Star Wars canon, nor the new Disney Star Wars canon policies, so don't try to play that game with me.

Oh how wrong you are of that. Your telling me that the movies didn't follow the books lore? And that the movies are now higher in the canon scale than the original work? WTF?!

You invented abilities like the 100% perfect accuracy and Khan himself having regen despite never showing it. Do not blame me if I follow the actual ST canon, and use it to serve as an explanation as to why NuKhan is inconsistent and doesn't show the power set you claimed he did.

Based on the books but only the movies are canon to the films. That's why they are different. Based on doesn't mean exactly the same. 😂

He did have perfect accuracy there. And he does have cellular regent ion like bones had never seen. All movie facts. Into Darkness is canon to alternate reality so you can't ignore feats just because you like the original shitty trek.

Originally posted by quanchi112
And they put the directors and storytellers in charge. Grant them the power. Star Wars legends aren't canon. Just clone wars series, films, comics, and novels.

They don't give them the power to override established canon, and set guidelines. Hence why Producers generally have creative control. And see the red text there? You've hard line denied Novels ever play a role, and yet, there you are saying it is so.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Based on the books but only the movies are canon to the films. That's why they are different. Based on doesn't mean exactly the same. 😂

So, what your saying is that you think that the lore the books established for history, past events, and everything else, despite repeated mentioning, no longer apply. And you claim this without explanation or proof. I'm sorry, but that's not how chain and flow of events work Quan. The movies rely on events both pre and post on screen. The film makers can only fit so much, and Jackson already crammed in 12 hours for the original trilogy, and almost as much for the Hobbit trilogy, that's 24 hours of screen time, and he barely scratched the surface.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He did have perfect accuracy there. And he does have cellular regent ion like bones had never seen. All movie facts. Into Darkness is canon to alternate reality so you can't ignore feats just because you like the original shitty trek.

It's not about liking or disliking it, it's about objective fact. And fact#1: Khan's shots struck floors and walls, miles off of viable targets. Fact#2: He never regenerated himself. Fact#3: He never would have lost the Eugenics Wars if he had those abilities, so explain that one.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
They don't give them the power to override established canon, and set guidelines. Hence why Producers generally have creative control. And see the red text there? You've hard line denied Novels ever play a role, and yet, there you are saying it is so.

So, what your saying is that you think that the lore the books established for history, past events, and everything else, despite repeated mentioning, no longer apply. And you claim this without explanation or proof. I'm sorry, but that's not how chain and flow of events work Quan. The movies rely on events both pre and post on screen. The film makers can only fit so much, and Jackson already crammed in 12 hours for the original trilogy, and almost as much for the Hobbit trilogy, that's 24 hours of screen time, and he barely scratched the surface.

It's not about liking or disliking it, it's about objective fact. And fact#1: Khan's shots struck floors and walls, miles off of viable targets. Fact#2: He never regenerated himself. Fact#3: He never would have lost the Eugenics Wars if he had those abilities, so explain that one.

For films only we see the rules. If someone says films only you don't get to bring in the books.

I provided a line from the film. Cellular regeneration. Prove it. We never saw the eugenics wars. His abilities are established canon fact from into darkness. You can't simply complain, if you don't want to argue into darkness Khah stay out of his threads.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, they did. They let them make canon Star Trek films. This isn't fan fic. Novels don't show real time or images so they are flowery language. Evidence but they don't make us forget how these chasrcters interact in canon films.

That doesn't make sense for starters. Secondary canon cannot override primary, and Star Trek has established canon already, so if you make something that doesn't gel, it gets scrapped. Things like Khan's superblood can be safely disregarded as outlier and PIS.

That does not disregard their importance, and it's not up to you to decide their value and the facts they establish.

Originally posted by quanchi112
For films only we see the rules. If someone says films only you don't get to bring in the books.

Depends on the context. If something isn't explained or fleshed out, I can rely on canon sources to fill in the gaps, because that is logical, subjective, and more importantly legal.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I provided a line from the film. Cellular regeneration. Prove it. We never saw the eugenics wars. His abilities are established canon fact from into darkness. You can't simply complain, if you don't want to argue into darkness Khah stay out of his threads.

What line?

That doesn't counteract previous, and post showings. And no, your fabled regeneration was never displayed by Khan. The wounds on his face from Spock didn't magically seal themselves up and stop welting. Stun blasts don't stop blood flow or cellular activity, the blasts work like a tazer, on neurological activity.

We know it's history from explanations in the show and previous film.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
That doesn't make sense for starters. Secondary canon cannot override primary, and Star Trek has established canon already, so if you make something that doesn't gel, it gets scrapped. Things like Khan's superblood can be safely disregarded as outlier and PIS.

That does not disregard their importance, and it's not up to you to decide their value and the facts they establish.

Depends on the context. If something isn't explained or fleshed out, I can rely on canon sources to fill in the gaps, because that is logical, subjective, and more importantly legal.

What line?

That doesn't counteract previous, and post showings. And no, your fabled regeneration was never displayed by Khan. The wounds on his face from Spock didn't magically seal themselves up and stop welting. Stun blasts don't stop blood flow or cellular activity, the blasts work like a tazer, on neurological activity.

We know it's history from explanations in the show and previous film.

Films only. Quit trolling. It's in the rules.

I never said he regenerates wounds instantly or can regrow limbs. I said his cellar regeneration impressed Bones. Fact. Canon. His blood healed terminal illnesses and brought Kirk back to life.

Into Darkenss is canon so no amount of griping will change that.

Originally posted by quanchi112
First off the Nu trek films aren't secondary canon. They are in continuity. We see the original Spock. It's in continuity.

Then it's a writing screw up like I said earlier, and can still be disregarded as such. You cannot have it both ways.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Films only. Quit trolling. It's in the rules.

The rules state "Film feats only." Not everything else, such as lore, history and background information. You really don't understand how the rule works. And nice call back to name calling BTW, here I was debating and talking in an honest manner.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I never said he regenerates wounds instantly or can regrow limbs. I said his cellar regeneration impressed Bones. Fact. Canon. His blood healed terminal illnesses and brought Kirk back to life.

That doesn't mean much on it's own. Bones had to synthesize a serum from Khan's blood. This doesn't actually mean anything for Khan himself in a fight. So you using it to try and establish something is a farce.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Into Darkenss is canon so no amount of griping will change that.

You keep saying that, but you still will not provide an explanation for the descrepancies outside of "retcon! Reeeeetcon!" Repeating yourself in a loop does not make that any more of a reason to allow the discrepancies as anything but a plot hole.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Then it's a writing screw up like I said earlier, and can still be disregarded as such. You cannot have it both ways.

The rules state "Film [b]feats only." Not everything else, such as lore, history and background information. You really don't understand how the rule works. And nice call back to name calling BTW, here I was debating and talking in an honest manner.

That doesn't mean much on it's own. Bones had to synthesize a serum from Khan's blood. This doesn't actually mean anything for Khan himself in a fight. So you using it to try and establish something is a farce.

You keep saying that, but you still will not provide an explanation for the descrepancies outside of "retcon! Reeeeetcon!" Repeating yourself in a loop does not make that any more of a reason to allow the discrepancies as anything but a plot hole. [/B]

So no book feats count. Film feats only.

We see Kirk unable to even harm him. That proves something in a fight. Bones exp,aimed his cellular regeneration. Fact.

They are film canon facts. You complaining about them won't change them.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You saying crappy writing is your biased opinion. They are film facts. Period.

Incorrect, I said inconsistent, not crappy (Some, like Mith said it's crappy, but not I) I called them plot holes.

Originally posted by quanchi112
So no book feats count. Film feats only.

Did I use a book feat... anywhere? No I did not. The SBers used the books to explain what things are, they didn't use that as a placeholder for feats. Learn the difference between an informed point, and a feat. Feat wars are always circular anyway.

Originally posted by quanchi112
We see Kirk unable to even harm him. That proves something in a fight. Bones exp,aimed his cellular regeneration. Fact.

An inexperienced young man rails on an augment. Yeah, so? It's not the same thing as getting punched by MOS Superman, or lightsabered.

Originally posted by quanchi112
They are film canon facts. You complaining about them won't change them.

I'm not complaining. I'm disregarding the ones that don't make canon sense and are plotholes. Those have always been on the outs.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Incorrect, I said inconsistent, not crappy (Some, like Mith said it's crappy, but not I) I called them plot holes.

Did I use a book feat... anywhere? No I did not. The SBers used the books to explain what things are, they didn't use that as a placeholder for feats. Learn the difference between an informed point, and a feat. Feat wars are always circular anyway.

An inexperienced young man rails on an augment. Yeah, so? It's not the same thing as getting punched by MOS Superman, or lightsabered.

I'm not complaining. I'm disregarding the ones that don't make canon sense and are plotholes. Those have always been on the outs.

Movie feats only and anything from the books is a feat. It is movies only, you can't dishonor the point of movie only threads. Stop.

Kirk beat Khan in space seed. Kirk was unable to even harm Khan while just allowing him to attack. Kirk also hurt Nero in Star Trek with a punch. When did I say it was ? Stay on point.

If you decide what facts count and what don't then you arent fit to argue objectively. I accept all facts. You pick and choose.